[Concepts] Diagnose when 'concept' is specified on a specialization

[hubert.reinterpretcast]

test/CXX/concepts-ts/dcl.dcl/dcl.spec/dcl.concept/p7.cpp

13 ↗

(On Diff #36270)

"extern template" is a form of explicit instantiation as well. I suggest testing that for both the function concept and variable concept cases.

[hubert.reinterpretcast]

test/CXX/concepts-ts/dcl.dcl/dcl.spec/dcl.concept/p7.cpp

4 ↗

(On Diff #36270)

This is not a declaration (never mind definition) of a function template or variable template, but of a specialization. Presumably, this violates [dcl.spec.concept]p1. Perhaps a test for p7 should omit the concept specifier? The same logic may apply to the explicit specialization cases.

[rsmith]

lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp

5902–5915 ↗

(On Diff #36270)

Maybe combine these into a single check, and use << (IsPartialSpecialization ? 2 : 1) for the specialization kind.

7562 ↗

(On Diff #36270)

Missing period.

7888 ↗

(On Diff #36270)

I'm not convinced this is going to work: if the declaration is invalid because it's declared concept /and/ for another reason, we presumably want to use the same error recovery path as before.

test/CXX/concepts-ts/dcl.dcl/dcl.spec/dcl.concept/p7.cpp

1 ↗

(On Diff #36270)

This file is in the wrong directory; the relevant section is [dcl.spec.concept], not [dcl.concept].

4 ↗

(On Diff #36270)

Right, there are two different ways things can go wrong here:

1. concept is specified on a non-template (such as in an explicit specialization or explicit instantiation declaration) or a variable template partial specialization
2. an explicit or partial specialization or an explicit instantiation declares (*without* the concept keyword) a specialization of a template that was declared as a concept.

This patch is only checking for the former case, whereas the rule in [dcl.spec.concept]p7 says that the latter case is ill-formed. So these tests are at least in the wrong file. To check for violations of p7, you'll need to look at whether the template's pattern is marked as being a concept.

I'm also not sure where we say that a partial specialization of a variable template cannot be declared concept; that seems to be a defect in the TS wording.

[nwilson]

Moving tests to the correct file.
Modifying the diagnostic id and message so it's more applicable to the checks in this Patch. Update the quoted sections of the standard as well.
Use ternary operator for Partial Specialization check.
Add missing period in comment.

[nwilson]

lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp

7886 ↗

(On Diff #37099)

Maybe there could be a problem further down if we think there aren't explicit template args and there really are. We could do a check similar to the isFriend check in the same block below like this:

else if (isConcept && isFunctionTemplateSpecialization) {

HasExplicitTemplateArgs = true;

}

But it seems like that's essentially the same thing.

[nwilson]

Addressing Richard's other comment regarding the check that the FunctionDecl is not a concept. Also, not marking the specialization as invalid if it's declared with the concept specifier since the downstream parts of Clang should look at the primary template.

[faisalv]

include/clang/AST/Decl.h

1577 ↗

(On Diff #37529)

My inclination would have been to add this bit to FunctionTemplateDecl, instead of to every FunctionDecl - since not every kind of FunctionDecl can be a concept ... My first instinct would have been to add an enum to TemplateKind, and then forward isConcept() to check if we are a template and if so, through it, if concept is specified?

But I suppose that adds more complexity, and you trade space for speed - For my own edification, could I ask you or Richard to comment on the cons of that approach - and why the current approach is preferred? (i.e. simplicity over complexity or space over time etc.)

[nwilson]

include/clang/AST/Decl.h

1577 ↗

(On Diff #37529)

Sorry for the slow reply. Yeah, I thought it was a little more straightforward having isConcept as a member function of FunctionDecl (and the bit). It also seemed that we'd be okay in terms of size since 17 bits are already being used here and adding one more wouldn't go over a byte boundary. Maybe Richard has other thoughts though?

[hubert.reinterpretcast]

include/clang/AST/Decl.h

1577 ↗

(On Diff #37529)

I am not sure what the original justification was for IsTrivial to be a bit here instead of in CXXMethodDecl, but it seems that similar considerations apply.

lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp

5909 ↗

(On Diff #37529)

Should we mention that the partial specialization case is pending additional wording (under Concepts TS Issue 15)?

[nwilson]

Updating to r251898

[nwilson]

lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp

5909 ↗

(On Diff #39030)

Hmm, I'd lean toward leaving it as is until the wording is sorted out. I don't feel too strongly either way though.

[nwilson]

• Remove marking a variable concept invalid when specialized since we'll only look at the primary template downstream. This removal let's us use the same recovery path as before when 'concept' is specified on a non-template.

[hubert.reinterpretcast]

Comment added inline. Otherwise, LGTM.

lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp

7659 ↗

(On Diff #40105)

I don't think the declaration should still be marked as a concept in this case.

[aaron.ballman]

Aside from one question, LGTM.

~Aaron

include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td

2003 ↗

(On Diff #40105)

Is this an extraneous %?

[nwilson]

include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td

2003 ↗

(On Diff #40105)

Good catch. I'll remove it when making the commit.

lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp

7659 ↗

(On Diff #40105)

Hmm, Richard - did you have any thoughts about this? IIRC, we might be okay here by only looking at the concept flag of the primary template.

[hubert.reinterpretcast]

lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp

7659 ↗

(On Diff #40105)

A consideration:
When processing the body associated with the specialization, should the requirements for a function concept body be checked?

[rsmith]

lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp

7659 ↗

(On Diff #40105)

I think the concept flag logically belongs on the template declaration rather than on the templated declaration; moving it there would make this question irrelevant =)

[nwilson]

lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp

7659 ↗

(On Diff #40105)

Sorry for the slow reply.

Okay. That makes sense. So, we'd be okay putting the IsConcept bit (and the associated member functions) in TemplateDecl then?

You'd be okay with the extra byte used?

[nwilson]

Updating to r254337

[nwilson]

• Move IsConcept bit and associated member functions from FunctionDecl to FunctionTemplateDecl.
• Set the IsConcept flag using getDescribedFunctionTemplate.

[nwilson]

Updating to r256247

[rsmith]

include/clang/AST/DeclTemplate.h

836 ↗

(On Diff #43469)

This might make more sense on TemplateDecl, since we also want this flag for VarTemplateDecls. In any case, please use some existing spare bit for this rather than making all FunctionTemplateDecls 8 bytes larger by putting it here.

986 ↗

(On Diff #43469)

Do we need a setter for this? (Can it change after the decl is constructed?)

lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp

7681 ↗

(On Diff #41441)

Yes, I think that's a reasonable way forward. You can change either TemplatedDecl or TemplateParams into a PointerIntPair to avoid making TemplateDecl larger.

lib/Sema/SemaTemplate.cpp

7672–7674 ↗

(On Diff #43469)

I don't think we need to quote the second sentence here.

7677 ↗

(On Diff #43469)

No space after ::

[faisalv]

include/clang/AST/DeclTemplate.h

836 ↗

(On Diff #43469)

@Nate - since you asked before, if I was to try and do this (now that we know Richard cares strongly about the extra space), I would probably risk complexity (and insult readability) by attempting to smuggle the extra bit into RedeclararableTemplateDecl::CommonBase::InstantiatedFromMember or perhaps within the low bits of the pointer to ReDeclarableTemplateDecl::CommonBase itself (i.e. Common)
Let's see if Richard has a preference - or suggests a completely different strategy for squirreling.

[nwilson]

include/clang/AST/DeclTemplate.h

836 ↗

(On Diff #43469)

@rsmith - Yeah, I originally thought to put it in TemplateDecl but reconsidered since ClassTemplateDecls would get it as well . However, I guess by making TemplateDecl::TemplatedDecl an IntPointerPair that concern is irrelevant.

@faisalv - Thanks for the info and suggestion! This helped with Richard's suggestion (below). FYI - It looks like that IntPointerPair, InstantiatedFromMember, is for explicit specializations, and the pointer to CommonBase (Common) is null for a function concept's primary template declaration.

986 ↗

(On Diff #43469)

The setter is used below when we see that concept is specified on the declaration. So, it wouldn't be initialized (or set) to true when the decl is constructed. Or, do you have a different opinion on where to set IsConcept to true such as how IsConstExpr is initialized in FunctionDecls being passed as a param in the constructor?

lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp

7727 ↗

(On Diff #43469)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll go with TemplatedDecl and see what you guys think.

[nwilson]

• Store the IsConcept boolean flag in TemplateDecl by making TemplatedDecl an IntPointerPair, and move the associated member functions into TemplateDecl.
• Remove unnecessary quoted comment.
• Remove an extra space where the diagnostic is used.

[nwilson]

Ping. Now that the holidays are over-ish, as Aaron said in one of his Patches.

[hubert.reinterpretcast]

include/clang/AST/DeclTemplate.h

373 ↗

(On Diff #43670)

This code is not limited to function concepts.

375 ↗

(On Diff #43670)

The parameter is now unused and should be removed.

[nwilson]

include/clang/AST/DeclTemplate.h

375 ↗

(On Diff #43670)

Hmm, I think I should actually use that parameter since it's a bug as is (and would still be if I removed the parameter). I'll plan on doing that unless there is another thought about this.

[hubert.reinterpretcast]

include/clang/AST/DeclTemplate.h

375 ↗

(On Diff #43670)

My interpretation of http://reviews.llvm.org/D13357?id=43469#inline-129592 is that the function should take no parameters (there is no need for a way to set the property to false). Perhaps I misunderstood Richard's intent.

[nwilson]

include/clang/AST/DeclTemplate.h

377 ↗

(On Diff #43469)

I can't seem to follow the link properly, but I'm assuming it's supposed to be where Richard is asking about whether we need a setter. I thought he meant whether we needed the setter function at all. Perhaps I misunderstood though.

But it seems to be the convention to give a boolean (or some other type of param) to a setter. I'd be fine either way though because as you said, there isn't a need to set the property to false. As a point of reference RedeclarableTemplateDecl::setMemberSpecialization doesn't take any params either.

[nwilson]

Ping.

@rsmith - would you also mind clarifying the comment regarding setConcept(bool IC) at to whether it should exist at all or simply not have any params?

[nwilson]

• Fix a couple of comments to reflect the Patch.
• Clang-format the changes in this Patch.

[nwilson]

Marking some comments Done which were fixed in previous updates.

[rsmith]

include/clang/AST/DeclTemplate.h

374 ↗

(On Diff #46588)

I would prefer to not have a setter at all, but if it's awkward to pass this flag into the constructor, then a setter is fine (and I don't mind whether or not it takes a parameter). We should definitely not take a parameter and ignore it though.

[nwilson]

include/clang/AST/DeclTemplate.h

374 ↗

(On Diff #46588)

Ah, gotcha. Yeah, it seemed somewhat awkward to me to pass the flag all the way through. As a note it would be VarTemplateDecl -> RedeclarableTemplateDecl -> TemplateDecl. Also, RedeclarableTemplateDecl also currently currently takes 7 parameters.

If you feel strongly, I can move it to the constructor. Otherwise, I'll take the parameter out of the setter as both you and Hubert have pointed out the property will not need to set to false.

[nwilson]

• This update removes the parameter in TemplateDecl::setConcept since there isn't a need to mark a concept false.

[hubert.reinterpretcast]

Minor comments; otherwise, LGTM.

lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp

6007 ↗

(On Diff #46854)

We do not need to quote the second sentence here. The ellipsis in the first sentence should be expanded since the full list is necessary to conclude that the cases being diagnosed here are excluded.

7754 ↗

(On Diff #46854)

We do not need to quote the second sentence here. The ellipsis in the first sentence should be expanded since the full list is necessary to conclude that the cases being diagnosed here are excluded.

[nwilson]

• Address Hubert's comments about the quoted section of the TS.

[rsmith]

LGTM

cfe/trunk/include/clang/AST/DeclTemplate.h

 /// class, function, etc.).
 ///
 /// The TemplateDecl class stores the list of template parameters and a
 /// reference to the templated scoped declaration: the underlying AST node.
 class TemplateDecl : public NamedDecl {
   void anchor() override;
 protected:
   // This is probably never used.
-  TemplateDecl(Kind DK, DeclContext *DC, SourceLocation L,
-               DeclarationName Name)
-    : NamedDecl(DK, DC, L, Name), TemplatedDecl(nullptr),
+  TemplateDecl(Kind DK, DeclContext *DC, SourceLocation L, DeclarationName Name)
+      : NamedDecl(DK, DC, L, Name), TemplatedDecl(nullptr, false),
         TemplateParams(nullptr) {}
 
   // Construct a template decl with the given name and parameters.
   // Used when there is not templated element (tt-params).
-  TemplateDecl(Kind DK, DeclContext *DC, SourceLocation L,
-               DeclarationName Name, TemplateParameterList *Params)
-    : NamedDecl(DK, DC, L, Name), TemplatedDecl(nullptr),
+  TemplateDecl(Kind DK, DeclContext *DC, SourceLocation L, DeclarationName Name,
+               TemplateParameterList *Params)
+      : NamedDecl(DK, DC, L, Name), TemplatedDecl(nullptr, false),
         TemplateParams(Params) {}
 
   // Construct a template decl with name, parameters, and templated element.
-  TemplateDecl(Kind DK, DeclContext *DC, SourceLocation L,
-               DeclarationName Name, TemplateParameterList *Params,
-               NamedDecl *Decl)
-    : NamedDecl(DK, DC, L, Name), TemplatedDecl(Decl),
-      TemplateParams(Params) { }
+  TemplateDecl(Kind DK, DeclContext *DC, SourceLocation L, DeclarationName Name,
+               TemplateParameterList *Params, NamedDecl *Decl)
+      : NamedDecl(DK, DC, L, Name), TemplatedDecl(Decl, false),
+        TemplateParams(Params) {}
+
 public:
   /// Get the list of template parameters
   TemplateParameterList *getTemplateParameters() const {
     return TemplateParams;
   }
 
   /// Get the underlying, templated declaration.
-  NamedDecl *getTemplatedDecl() const { return TemplatedDecl; }
+  NamedDecl *getTemplatedDecl() const { return TemplatedDecl.getPointer(); }
 
   // Implement isa/cast/dyncast/etc.
   static bool classof(const Decl *D) { return classofKind(D->getKind()); }
   static bool classofKind(Kind K) {
     return K >= firstTemplate && K <= lastTemplate;
   }
 
   SourceRange getSourceRange() const override LLVM_READONLY {
     return SourceRange(TemplateParams->getTemplateLoc(),
-                       TemplatedDecl->getSourceRange().getEnd());
+                       TemplatedDecl.getPointer()->getSourceRange().getEnd());
   }
 
+  /// Whether this is a (C++ Concepts TS) function or variable concept.
+  bool isConcept() const { return TemplatedDecl.getInt(); }
+  void setConcept() { TemplatedDecl.setInt(true); }
+
 protected:
-  NamedDecl *TemplatedDecl;
+  /// \brief The named declaration from which this template was instantiated.
+  /// (or null).
+  ///
+  /// The boolean value will be true to indicate that this template
+  /// (function or variable) is a concept.
+  llvm::PointerIntPair<NamedDecl *, 1, bool> TemplatedDecl;
+
   TemplateParameterList* TemplateParams;
 
 public:
   /// \brief Initialize the underlying templated declaration and
   /// template parameters.
   void init(NamedDecl *templatedDecl, TemplateParameterList* templateParams) {
-    assert(!TemplatedDecl && "TemplatedDecl already set!");
+    assert(!TemplatedDecl.getPointer() && "TemplatedDecl already set!");
     assert(!TemplateParams && "TemplateParams already set!");
-    TemplatedDecl = templatedDecl;
+    TemplatedDecl.setPointer(templatedDecl);
     TemplateParams = templateParams;
   }
 };
 
 /// \brief Provides information about a function template specialization,
 /// which is a FunctionDecl that has been explicitly specialization or
 /// instantiated from a function template.
 class FunctionTemplateSpecializationInfo : public llvm::FoldingSetNode {
void addSpecialization(FunctionTemplateSpecializationInfo* Info,
                          void *InsertPos);
 
 public:
   /// \brief Load any lazily-loaded specializations from the external source.
   void LoadLazySpecializations() const;
 
   /// Get the underlying function declaration of the template.
   FunctionDecl *getTemplatedDecl() const {
-    return static_cast<FunctionDecl*>(TemplatedDecl);
+    return static_cast<FunctionDecl *>(TemplatedDecl.getPointer());
   }
 
   /// Returns whether this template declaration defines the primary
   /// pattern.
   bool isThisDeclarationADefinition() const {
     return getTemplatedDecl()->isThisDeclarationADefinition();
   }
 
protected:
   }
 
 public:
   /// \brief Load any lazily-loaded specializations from the external source.
   void LoadLazySpecializations() const;
 
   /// \brief Get the underlying class declarations of the template.
   CXXRecordDecl *getTemplatedDecl() const {
-    return static_cast<CXXRecordDecl *>(TemplatedDecl);
+    return static_cast<CXXRecordDecl *>(TemplatedDecl.getPointer());
   }
 
   /// \brief Returns whether this template declaration defines the primary
   /// class pattern.
   bool isThisDeclarationADefinition() const {
     return getTemplatedDecl()->isThisDeclarationADefinition();
   }
 
protected:
 
   Common *getCommonPtr() {
     return static_cast<Common *>(RedeclarableTemplateDecl::getCommonPtr());
   }
 
 public:
   /// Get the underlying function declaration of the template.
   TypeAliasDecl *getTemplatedDecl() const {
-    return static_cast<TypeAliasDecl*>(TemplatedDecl);
+    return static_cast<TypeAliasDecl *>(TemplatedDecl.getPointer());
   }
 
 
   TypeAliasTemplateDecl *getCanonicalDecl() override {
     return cast<TypeAliasTemplateDecl>(
              RedeclarableTemplateDecl::getCanonicalDecl());
   }
   const TypeAliasTemplateDecl *getCanonicalDecl() const {
protected:
   }
 
 public:
   /// \brief Load any lazily-loaded specializations from the external source.
   void LoadLazySpecializations() const;
 
   /// \brief Get the underlying variable declarations of the template.
   VarDecl *getTemplatedDecl() const {
-    return static_cast<VarDecl *>(TemplatedDecl);
+    return static_cast<VarDecl *>(TemplatedDecl.getPointer());
   }
 
   /// \brief Returns whether this template declaration defines the primary
   /// variable pattern.
   bool isThisDeclarationADefinition() const {
     return getTemplatedDecl()->isThisDeclarationADefinition();
   }
 

cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td

def err_concept_decl_invalid_specifiers : Error<
   "%select{variable|function}0 concept cannot be declared "
   "'%select{thread_local|inline|friend|constexpr}1'">;
 def err_function_concept_with_params : Error<
   "function concept cannot have any parameters">;
 def err_function_concept_bool_ret : Error<
   "declared return type of function concept must be 'bool'">;
 def err_variable_concept_bool_decl : Error<
   "declared type of variable concept must be 'bool'">;
+def err_concept_specified_specialization : Error<
+  "'concept' cannot be applied on an "
+  "%select{explicit instantiation|explicit specialization|partial specialization}0">;
 
 // C++11 char16_t/char32_t
 def warn_cxx98_compat_unicode_type : Warning<
   "'%0' type specifier is incompatible with C++98">,
   InGroup<CXX98Compat>, DefaultIgnore;
 
 // __make_integer_seq
 def err_integer_sequence_negative_length : Error<

cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp

if (D.getDeclSpec().isConceptSpecified()) {
 
       if (D.getDeclSpec().isConstexprSpecified()) {
         Diag(D.getDeclSpec().getConstexprSpecLoc(),
              diag::err_concept_decl_invalid_specifiers)
             << 0 << 3;
         NewVD->setInvalidDecl(true);
       }
 
+      // C++ Concepts TS [dcl.spec.concept]p1: The concept specifier shall be
+      // applied only to the definition of a function template or variable
+      // template, declared in namespace scope.
+      if (IsVariableTemplateSpecialization) {
+        Diag(D.getDeclSpec().getConceptSpecLoc(),
+             diag::err_concept_specified_specialization)
+            << (IsPartialSpecialization ? 2 : 1);
+      }
+
       // C++ Concepts TS [dcl.spec.concept]p6: A variable concept has the
       // following restrictions:
       // - The declared type shall have the type bool.
       if (!Context.hasSameType(NewVD->getType(), Context.BoolTy) &&
           !NewVD->isInvalidDecl()) {
         Diag(D.getIdentifierLoc(), diag::err_variable_concept_bool_decl);
         NewVD->setInvalidDecl(true);
       }
if (isConstexpr) {
       // C++11 [dcl.constexpr]p3: functions declared constexpr are required to
       // be either constructors or to return a literal type. Therefore,
       // destructors cannot be declared constexpr.
       if (isa<CXXDestructorDecl>(NewFD))
         Diag(D.getDeclSpec().getConstexprSpecLoc(), diag::err_constexpr_dtor);
     }
 
     if (isConcept) {
+      // This is a function concept.
+      if (FunctionTemplateDecl *FTD = NewFD->getDescribedFunctionTemplate())
+        FTD->setConcept();
+
       // C++ Concepts TS [dcl.spec.concept]p1: The concept specifier shall be
       // applied only to the definition of a function template [...]
       if (!D.isFunctionDefinition()) {
         Diag(D.getDeclSpec().getConceptSpecLoc(),
              diag::err_function_concept_not_defined);
         NewFD->setInvalidDecl();
       }
 
if (isConcept) {
       }
 
       if (isConstexpr) {
         Diag(D.getDeclSpec().getConstexprSpecLoc(),
              diag::err_concept_decl_invalid_specifiers)
             << 1 << 3;
         NewFD->setInvalidDecl(true);
       }
+
+      // C++ Concepts TS [dcl.spec.concept]p1: The concept specifier shall be
+      // applied only to the definition of a function template or variable
+      // template, declared in namespace scope.
+      if (isFunctionTemplateSpecialization) {
+        Diag(D.getDeclSpec().getConceptSpecLoc(),
+             diag::err_concept_specified_specialization) << 1;
+      }
     }
 
     // If __module_private__ was specified, mark the function accordingly.
     if (D.getDeclSpec().isModulePrivateSpecified()) {
       if (isFunctionTemplateSpecialization) {
         SourceLocation ModulePrivateLoc
           = D.getDeclSpec().getModulePrivateSpecLoc();
         Diag(ModulePrivateLoc, diag::err_module_private_specialization)
if (!getLangOpts().CPlusPlus) {
     if (D.getName().getKind() == UnqualifiedId::IK_TemplateId) {
       TemplateIdAnnotation *TemplateId = D.getName().TemplateId;
       TemplateArgs.setLAngleLoc(TemplateId->LAngleLoc);
       TemplateArgs.setRAngleLoc(TemplateId->RAngleLoc);
       ASTTemplateArgsPtr TemplateArgsPtr(TemplateId->getTemplateArgs(),
                                          TemplateId->NumArgs);
       translateTemplateArguments(TemplateArgsPtr,
                                  TemplateArgs);
-    
       HasExplicitTemplateArgs = true;
-    
       if (NewFD->isInvalidDecl()) {
         HasExplicitTemplateArgs = false;
       } else if (FunctionTemplate) {
         // Function template with explicit template arguments.
         Diag(D.getIdentifierLoc(), diag::err_function_template_partial_spec)
           << SourceRange(TemplateId->LAngleLoc, TemplateId->RAngleLoc);
 
         HasExplicitTemplateArgs = false;

cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaTemplate.cpp

Diag(D.getDeclSpec().getInlineSpecLoc(),
            diag::warn_explicit_instantiation_inline_0x)
       << FixItHint::CreateRemoval(D.getDeclSpec().getInlineSpecLoc());
   if (D.getDeclSpec().isConstexprSpecified() && R->isFunctionType())
     // FIXME: Add a fix-it to remove the 'constexpr' and add a 'const' if one is
     // not already specified.
     Diag(D.getDeclSpec().getConstexprSpecLoc(),
          diag::err_explicit_instantiation_constexpr);
 
+  // C++ Concepts TS [dcl.spec.concept]p1: The concept specifier shall be
+  // applied only to the definition of a function template or variable template,
+  // declared in namespace scope.
+  if (D.getDeclSpec().isConceptSpecified()) {
+    Diag(D.getDeclSpec().getConceptSpecLoc(),
+         diag::err_concept_specified_specialization) << 0;
+    return true;
+  }
+
   // C++0x [temp.explicit]p2:
   //   There are two forms of explicit instantiation: an explicit instantiation
   //   definition and an explicit instantiation declaration. An explicit
   //   instantiation declaration begins with the extern keyword. [...]
   TemplateSpecializationKind TSK
     = ExternLoc.isInvalid()? TSK_ExplicitInstantiationDefinition
                            : TSK_ExplicitInstantiationDeclaration;
 

cfe/trunk/test/CXX/concepts-ts/dcl.dcl/dcl.spec/dcl.spec.concept/p1.cpp

 concept enum CE1 {}; // expected-error {{'concept' can only appear on the definition of a function template or variable template}}
 template <typename T> concept class TCC1 {}; // expected-error {{'concept' can only appear on the definition of a function template or variable template}}
 template <typename T> concept struct TCS1 {}; // expected-error {{'concept' can only appear on the definition of a function template or variable template}}
 template <typename T> concept union TCU1 {}; // expected-error {{'concept' can only appear on the definition of a function template or variable template}}
 typedef concept int CI; // expected-error {{'concept' can only appear on the definition of a function template or variable template}}
 void fpc(concept int i) {} // expected-error {{'concept' can only appear on the definition of a function template or variable template}}
 
 concept bool; // expected-error {{'concept' can only appear on the definition of a function template or variable template}}
+
+template <typename T> concept bool VCEI{ true };
+template concept bool VCEI<int>; // expected-error {{'concept' cannot be applied on an explicit instantiation}}
+extern template concept bool VCEI<int>; // expected-error {{'concept' cannot be applied on an explicit instantiation}}
+
+template <typename T> concept bool VCPS{ true };
+template <typename T> concept bool VCPS<T *>{ true }; // expected-error {{'concept' cannot be applied on an partial specialization}}
+
+template <typename T> concept bool VCES{ true };
+template <> concept bool VCES<int>{ true }; // expected-error {{'concept' cannot be applied on an explicit specialization}}
+
+template <typename T> concept bool FCEI() { return true; }
+template concept bool FCEI<int>(); // expected-error {{'concept' cannot be applied on an explicit instantiation}}
+extern template concept bool FCEI<int>(); // expected-error {{'concept' cannot be applied on an explicit instantiation}}
+
+template <typename T> concept bool FCES() { return true; }
+template <> concept bool FCES<bool>() { return true; } // expected-error {{'concept' cannot be applied on an explicit specialization}}