| Message ID | 20190813133217.GA11146@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/2] PR c++/91436 fix C++ dialect for std::make_unique fix-it hint | expand |
On 8/13/19 9:32 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > * g++.dg/lookup/missing-std-include-6.C: Don't check make_unique in > test that runs for C++11. I'm not comfortable removing this test coverage entirely. Doesn't it give a useful diagnostic in C++11 mode as well? Jason
On 13/08/19 16:07 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: >On 8/13/19 9:32 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> * g++.dg/lookup/missing-std-include-6.C: Don't check make_unique in >> test that runs for C++11. > >I'm not comfortable removing this test coverage entirely. Doesn't it >give a useful diagnostic in C++11 mode as well? It does: mu.cc:3:15: error: 'make_unique' is not a member of 'std' 3 | auto p = std::make_unique<int>(); | ^~~~~~~~~~~ mu.cc:3:15: note: 'std::make_unique' is only available from C++14 onwards mu.cc:3:27: error: expected primary-expression before 'int' 3 | auto p = std::make_unique<int>(); | ^~~ So we can add it to g++.dg/lookup/missing-std-include-8.C instead, which runs for c++98_only and checks for the "is only available for" cases. Here's a patch doing that. Tested x86_64-linux. OK for trunk? OK for gcc-9-branch and gcc-8-branch too, since PR c++/91436 affects those branches?
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 7:02 AM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 13/08/19 16:07 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > >On 8/13/19 9:32 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >> * g++.dg/lookup/missing-std-include-6.C: Don't check make_unique in > >> test that runs for C++11. > > > >I'm not comfortable removing this test coverage entirely. Doesn't it > >give a useful diagnostic in C++11 mode as well? > > It does: > > mu.cc:3:15: error: 'make_unique' is not a member of 'std' > 3 | auto p = std::make_unique<int>(); > | ^~~~~~~~~~~ > mu.cc:3:15: note: 'std::make_unique' is only available from C++14 onwards > mu.cc:3:27: error: expected primary-expression before 'int' > 3 | auto p = std::make_unique<int>(); > | ^~~ > > So we can add it to g++.dg/lookup/missing-std-include-8.C instead, > which runs for c++98_only and checks for the "is only available for" > cases. Here's a patch doing that. > > Tested x86_64-linux. > > OK for trunk? > > OK for gcc-9-branch and gcc-8-branch too, since PR c++/91436 affects > those branches? OK. Jason
On Wed, 2019-08-14 at 12:02 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 13/08/19 16:07 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > > On 8/13/19 9:32 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > * g++.dg/lookup/missing-std-include-6.C: Don't check > > > make_unique in > > > test that runs for C++11. > > > > I'm not comfortable removing this test coverage entirely. Doesn't > > it > > give a useful diagnostic in C++11 mode as well? > > It does: > > mu.cc:3:15: error: 'make_unique' is not a member of 'std' > 3 | auto p = std::make_unique<int>(); > | ^~~~~~~~~~~ > mu.cc:3:15: note: 'std::make_unique' is only available from C++14 > onwards > mu.cc:3:27: error: expected primary-expression before 'int' > 3 | auto p = std::make_unique<int>(); > | ^~~ > > So we can add it to g++.dg/lookup/missing-std-include-8.C instead, > which runs for c++98_only and checks for the "is only available for" > cases. Here's a patch doing that. FWIW this eliminates the testing that when we do have C++14 onwards, that including <memory> is suggested. Maybe we need a C++14-onwards missing-std-include-* test, and to move the existing test there? (and to add the new test for before-C++-14) > Tested x86_64-linux. > > OK for trunk? > > OK for gcc-9-branch and gcc-8-branch too, since PR c++/91436 affects > those branches? >
On 8/14/19 10:39 AM, David Malcolm wrote: > On Wed, 2019-08-14 at 12:02 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> On 13/08/19 16:07 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: >>> On 8/13/19 9:32 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>>> * g++.dg/lookup/missing-std-include-6.C: Don't check >>>> make_unique in >>>> test that runs for C++11. >>> >>> I'm not comfortable removing this test coverage entirely. Doesn't >>> it >>> give a useful diagnostic in C++11 mode as well? >> >> It does: >> >> mu.cc:3:15: error: 'make_unique' is not a member of 'std' >> 3 | auto p = std::make_unique<int>(); >> | ^~~~~~~~~~~ >> mu.cc:3:15: note: 'std::make_unique' is only available from C++14 >> onwards >> mu.cc:3:27: error: expected primary-expression before 'int' >> 3 | auto p = std::make_unique<int>(); >> | ^~~ >> >> So we can add it to g++.dg/lookup/missing-std-include-8.C instead, >> which runs for c++98_only and checks for the "is only available for" >> cases. Here's a patch doing that. > > FWIW this eliminates the testing that when we do have C++14 onwards, > that including <memory> is suggested. > > Maybe we need a C++14-onwards missing-std-include-* test, and to move > the existing test there? (and to add the new test for before-C++-14) We can also check for different messages in different std modes, i.e. { dg-message "one" "" { target c++11_down } .-1 } { dg-message "two" "" { target c++14 } .-2 } Jason
On 14/08/19 10:39 -0400, David Malcolm wrote: >On Wed, 2019-08-14 at 12:02 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> On 13/08/19 16:07 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: >> > On 8/13/19 9:32 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> > > * g++.dg/lookup/missing-std-include-6.C: Don't check >> > > make_unique in >> > > test that runs for C++11. >> > >> > I'm not comfortable removing this test coverage entirely. Doesn't >> > it >> > give a useful diagnostic in C++11 mode as well? >> >> It does: >> >> mu.cc:3:15: error: 'make_unique' is not a member of 'std' >> 3 | auto p = std::make_unique<int>(); >> | ^~~~~~~~~~~ >> mu.cc:3:15: note: 'std::make_unique' is only available from C++14 >> onwards >> mu.cc:3:27: error: expected primary-expression before 'int' >> 3 | auto p = std::make_unique<int>(); >> | ^~~ >> >> So we can add it to g++.dg/lookup/missing-std-include-8.C instead, >> which runs for c++98_only and checks for the "is only available for" >> cases. Here's a patch doing that. > >FWIW this eliminates the testing that when we do have C++14 onwards, >that including <memory> is suggested. Do we really care? Are we testing that *every* entry in the array gives the right answer for both missing-header and bad-std-option, or are we just testing a subset of them to be sure the logic works as expected? Because if we're testing every entry then: 1) we're missing LOTS of tests, and 2) we're just as likely to test the wrong thing and not actually catch bugs (as was already happening for both make_unique and complex_literals). >Maybe we need a C++14-onwards missing-std-include-* test, and to move >the existing test there? (and to add the new test for before-C++-14) We could, but is it worth it?
On Wed, 2019-08-14 at 16:53 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 14/08/19 10:39 -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > > On Wed, 2019-08-14 at 12:02 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > On 13/08/19 16:07 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > > > > On 8/13/19 9:32 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > > * g++.dg/lookup/missing-std-include-6.C: Don't check > > > > > make_unique in > > > > > test that runs for C++11. > > > > > > > > I'm not comfortable removing this test coverage > > > > entirely. Doesn't > > > > it > > > > give a useful diagnostic in C++11 mode as well? > > > > > > It does: > > > > > > mu.cc:3:15: error: 'make_unique' is not a member of 'std' > > > 3 | auto p = std::make_unique<int>(); > > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~ > > > mu.cc:3:15: note: 'std::make_unique' is only available from C++14 > > > onwards > > > mu.cc:3:27: error: expected primary-expression before 'int' > > > 3 | auto p = std::make_unique<int>(); > > > | ^~~ > > > > > > So we can add it to g++.dg/lookup/missing-std-include-8.C > > > instead, > > > which runs for c++98_only and checks for the "is only available > > > for" > > > cases. Here's a patch doing that. > > > > FWIW this eliminates the testing that when we do have C++14 > > onwards, > > that including <memory> is suggested. > > Do we really care? > > Are we testing that *every* entry in the array gives the right answer > for both missing-header and bad-std-option, or are we just testing a > subset of them to be sure the logic works as expected? > > Because if we're testing every entry then: > > 1) we're missing LOTS of tests, and > > 2) we're just as likely to test the wrong thing and not actually > catch > bugs (as was already happening for both make_unique and > complex_literals). > > > Maybe we need a C++14-onwards missing-std-include-* test, and to > > move > > the existing test there? (and to add the new test for before-C++- > > 14) > > We could, but is it worth it? Fair enough. Dave
diff --git a/gcc/cp/name-lookup.c b/gcc/cp/name-lookup.c index 9f278220df3..96b2d90540d 100644 --- a/gcc/cp/name-lookup.c +++ b/gcc/cp/name-lookup.c @@ -5557,7 +5557,7 @@ get_std_name_hint (const char *name) {"bitset", "<bitset>", cxx11}, /* <complex>. */ {"complex", "<complex>", cxx98}, - {"complex_literals", "<complex>", cxx98}, + {"complex_literals", "<complex>", cxx14}, /* <condition_variable>. */ {"condition_variable", "<condition_variable>", cxx11}, {"condition_variable_any", "<condition_variable>", cxx11}, @@ -5619,7 +5619,7 @@ get_std_name_hint (const char *name) {"multimap", "<map>", cxx98}, /* <memory>. */ {"make_shared", "<memory>", cxx11}, - {"make_unique", "<memory>", cxx11}, + {"make_unique", "<memory>", cxx14}, {"shared_ptr", "<memory>", cxx11}, {"unique_ptr", "<memory>", cxx11}, {"weak_ptr", "<memory>", cxx11}, diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lookup/missing-std-include-5.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lookup/missing-std-include-5.C index fe880a6263b..3ec9abd9316 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lookup/missing-std-include-5.C +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lookup/missing-std-include-5.C @@ -1,2 +1,3 @@ +// { dg-do compile { target c++14 } } using namespace std::complex_literals; // { dg-error "" } // { dg-message "#include <complex>" "" { target *-*-* } .-1 } diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lookup/missing-std-include-6.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lookup/missing-std-include-6.C index d9eeb4284e8..a8f27473e6d 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lookup/missing-std-include-6.C +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lookup/missing-std-include-6.C @@ -11,15 +11,6 @@ void test_make_shared () // { dg-error "expected primary-expression before '\\)' token" "" { target *-*-* } .-3 } } -template<class T> -void test_make_unique () -{ - auto p = std::make_unique<T>(); // { dg-error "'make_unique' is not a member of 'std'" } - // { dg-message "'#include <memory>'" "" { target *-*-* } .-1 } - // { dg-error "expected primary-expression before '>' token" "" { target *-*-* } .-2 } - // { dg-error "expected primary-expression before '\\)' token" "" { target *-*-* } .-3 } -} - std::shared_ptr<int> test_shared_ptr; // { dg-error "'shared_ptr' in namespace 'std' does not name a template type" } // { dg-message "'#include <memory>'" "" { target *-*-* } .-1 }
The std::make_unique function wasn't added until C++14, and neither was the std::complex_literals namespace. gcc/cp: PR c++/91436 * name-lookup.c (get_std_name_hint): Fix min_dialect field for complex_literals and make_unique entries. gcc/testsuite: PR c++/91436 * g++.dg/lookup/missing-std-include-5.C: Limit test to C++14 and up. * g++.dg/lookup/missing-std-include-6.C: Don't check make_unique in test that runs for C++11. Tested x86_64-linux. OK for trunk? commit b58e771fe21ae380200fdec00aa899d4b15b73d5 Author: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com> Date: Tue Aug 13 13:25:39 2019 +0100 PR c++/91436 fix C++ dialect for std::make_unique fix-it hint The std::make_unique function wasn't added until C++14, and neither was the std::complex_literals namespace. gcc/cp: PR c++/91436 * name-lookup.c (get_std_name_hint): Fix min_dialect field for complex_literals and make_unique entries. gcc/testsuite: PR c++/91436 * g++.dg/lookup/missing-std-include-5.C: Limit test to C++14 and up. * g++.dg/lookup/missing-std-include-6.C: Don't check make_unique in test that runs for C++11.