Given template<class> using Int = int;, the type void(Int<Ts>...) should be treated as a dependent type, even though Int<Ts> is not dependent.
This fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42654
Differential D65050
[SemaTemplate] Mark a function type as dependent when its parameter list contains pack expansion cpplearner on Jul 21 2019, 6:32 AM. Authored by
Details
Given template<class> using Int = int;, the type void(Int<Ts>...) should be treated as a dependent type, even though Int<Ts> is not dependent. This fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42654
Diff Detail
Event TimelineComment Actions Is this the only place where a compound type can contain a PackExpansionType? The code could probably use a brief comment explaining why we need to check this explicitly, even though it isn't listed in [temp.dep.type]. Comment Actions Yes AFAIK. No other place can contain a list or a pack expansion. The closest thing is dynamic exception specification (which isn't part of the type), and it seems to be handled properly.
Done. Comment Actions The noexcept specifier is part of the type these days, is that also handled properly? Comment Actions I believe that it's properly handled in this section of FunctionProtoType::FunctionProtoType: // If this is a canonical type, and its exception specification is dependent, // then it's a dependent type. This only happens in C++17 onwards. if (isCanonicalUnqualified()) { if (getExceptionSpecType() == EST_Dynamic || getExceptionSpecType() == EST_DependentNoexcept) { assert(hasDependentExceptionSpec() && "type should not be canonical"); setDependent(); } } else if (getCanonicalTypeInternal()->isDependentType()) { // Ask our canonical type whether our exception specification was dependent. setDependent(); } Comment Actions I think this is reasonable, but I'd like @rsmith to weigh in -- this looks like it could be a Core Issue. Comment Actions
I think the issue is clang-specific. clang splits the standard notion of a dependent type into two separate bits, for the sake of diagnostics: isDependentType(), and isInstantiationDependentType(). isInstantiationDependentType() reflects the actual standard definition of a dependent type; isDependentType() is a type that can actually vary across instantiations. Comment Actions According to comment in include/clang/AST/Type.h (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/llvmorg-8.0.1/clang/include/clang/AST/Type.h#L1426), Dependent reflects the standard definition, while InstantiationDependent reflects "whether this type somehow involves a template parameter, even if the resolution of the type does not depend on a template parameter" (e.g. decltype(sizeof(T))). Therefore, I agree with Aaron that this could be a Core issue. |