Re: [PATCH 1/2] PR c++/91436 fix C++ dialect for std::make_unique fix-it hint
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(); > > > | ^~~ > > > 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(); > > > | ^~~ > > > > > > 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 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
Re: [PATCH 1/2] PR c++/91436 fix C++ dialect for std::make_unique fix-it hint
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(); | ^~~ 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(); | ^~~ 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 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?
Re: [PATCH 1/2] PR c++/91436 fix C++ dialect for std::make_unique fix-it hint
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();
| ^~~
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();
| ^~~
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 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
Re: [PATCH 1/2] PR c++/91436 fix C++ dialect for std::make_unique fix-it hint
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(); > | ^~~ > 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(); > | ^~~ > > 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 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? >
Re: [PATCH 1/2] PR c++/91436 fix C++ dialect for std::make_unique fix-it hint
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 7:02 AM 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(); > | ^~~ > 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(); > | ^~~ > > 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
Re: [PATCH 1/2] PR c++/91436 fix C++ dialect for std::make_unique fix-it hint
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();
| ^~~
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();
| ^~~
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?
commit 5ad7b3202e4818f2d6d84e22e7e489b39a65c851
Author: Jonathan Wakely
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.
* g++.dg/lookup/missing-std-include-8.C: Check make_unique here.
diff --git a/gcc/cp/name-lookup.c b/gcc/cp/name-lookup.c
index d5e491e9072..16c74287bb1 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/name-lookup.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/name-lookup.c
@@ -5559,7 +5559,7 @@ get_std_name_hint (const char *name)
{"bitset", "", cxx11},
/* . */
{"complex", "", cxx98},
-{"complex_literals", "", cxx98},
+{"complex_literals", "", cxx14},
/* . */
{"condition_variable", "", cxx11},
{"condition_variable_any", "", cxx11},
@@ -5632,7 +5632,7 @@ get_std_name_hint (const char *name)
{"allocator", "", cxx98},
{"allocator_traits", "", cxx11},
{"make_shared", "", cxx11},
-{"make_unique", "", cxx11},
+{"make_unique", "", cxx14},
{"shared_ptr", "", cxx11},
{"unique_ptr", "", cxx11},
{"weak_ptr", "", 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 " "" { 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
-void test_make_unique ()
-{
- auto p = std::make_unique(); // { dg-error "'make_unique' is not a member of 'std'" }
- // { dg-message "'#include '" "" { target *-*-* } .-1 }
- // { dg-error "expected primary-expression before '>' token" "" { target *-*-* } .-2 }
- // { dg-error "expected primary-expression before '\\)' token" "" { target *-*-* } .-3 }
-}
-
std::shared_ptr test_shared_ptr; // { dg-error "'shared_ptr' in namespace 'std' does not name a template type" }
// { dg-message "'#include '" "" { target *-*-* } .-1 }
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lookup/missing-std-include-8.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lookup/missing-std-include-8.C
index 68b208299f2..73532c82968 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lookup/missing-std-include-8.C
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lookup/missing-std-include-8.C
@@ -13,6 +13,15 @@ void test_make_shared ()
// { dg-error "expected primary-expression before '\\)' token" "" { target *-*-* } .-3 }
}
+template
+void test_make_unique ()
+{
+ std::make_unique(); // { dg-error "'make_unique' is not a member of 'std'" }
+ // { dg-message "'std::make_unique' is only available from C\\+\\+14 onwards" "" { target *-*-* } .-1 }
+ // { dg-error "expected primary-expression before '>' token" "" { target *-*-* } .-2 }
+ // { dg-error "expected primary-expression before '\\)' token" "" { target *-*-* } .-3 }
+}
+
void test_array ()
{
std::array a; // { dg-error "'array' is not a member of 'std'" }
Re: [PATCH 1/2] PR c++/91436 fix C++ dialect for std::make_unique fix-it hint
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
[PATCH 1/2] 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.
Tested x86_64-linux. OK for trunk?
commit b58e771fe21ae380200fdec00aa899d4b15b73d5
Author: Jonathan Wakely
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.
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", "", cxx11},
/* . */
{"complex", "", cxx98},
-{"complex_literals", "", cxx98},
+{"complex_literals", "", cxx14},
/* . */
{"condition_variable", "", cxx11},
{"condition_variable_any", "", cxx11},
@@ -5619,7 +5619,7 @@ get_std_name_hint (const char *name)
{"multimap", "", cxx98},
/* . */
{"make_shared", "", cxx11},
-{"make_unique", "", cxx11},
+{"make_unique", "", cxx14},
{"shared_ptr", "", cxx11},
{"unique_ptr", "", cxx11},
{"weak_ptr", "", 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 " "" { 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
-void test_make_unique ()
-{
- auto p = std::make_unique(); // { dg-error "'make_unique' is not a member
of 'std'" }
- // { dg-message "'#include '" "" { target *-*-* } .-1 }
- // { dg-error "expected primary-expression before '>' token" "" { target
*-*-* } .-2 }
- // { dg-error "expected primary-expression before '\\)' token" "" { target
*-*-* } .-3 }
-}
-
std::shared_ptr test_shared_ptr; // { dg-error "'shared_ptr' in namespace
'std' does not name a template type" }
// { dg-message "'#include '" "" { target *-*-* } .-1 }
