Lambdas are not necessarily locals. This resolves DR48250.

[davidstone]

It looks like this change was originally added 9 years ago with a commit message of

"Lambda closure types are always considered to be like "local" classes,
even if they are not within a function scope. Teach template
instantiation to treat them as such, and make sure that we have a
local instantiation scope when instantiating default arguments and
static data members."

but unfortunately, it does not include the context to explain *why* this is the case. There do not appear to be any tests that capture this, and I haven't found code that fails to compile / causes the compiled code's unit tests to fail.

[davidstone]

The previous commit is https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/a86bc00, and I don't understand enough of what the other code is doing to know if anything else needs to be fixed. I'd also like to add in a test to ensure this doesn't regress in the future, but I'm not sure of what the best place to put the test is. From https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48250

auto lambda = [](auto) {};

template<typename T>
void a(T x) { lambda.operator()(x); }

void b() { a(0); }

[rsmith]

Hm, do we ever call FindInstantiatedDecl on a lambda class in the first place? It seems plausible to me that this condition is unreachable. But to the extent that it's reachable, it seems mostly correct: a lambda expression appearing in a non-dependent context might still be dependent (for example, it could be a lambda in the initializer of a variable template), and in that case, it should be found in the local instantiation scope. I think it's not quite correct in that case, though: we should expect to find the closure type in the local instantiation scope only if its template depth (D->getTemplateDepth()) is greater than the number of outer retained template levels. In fact, we could change ParentDependsOnArgs to do that check in general (Decl::getTemplateDepth didn't exist when ParentDependsOnArgs was written).

[rsmith]

Ah, I think I see how we get here. I think this fix might possibly break a case such as:

template<typename T> int x = [](auto){ return T(); }.operator()(T());
int y = x<int>;

... where transforming the call to operator() might end up looking for the transformed version of the lambda class; we need to find that in the local instantiation scope.

I think we want something like isa<CXXRecordDecl>(D) && cast<CXXRecordDecl>(D)->isDependentLambda() && cast<CXXRecordDecl>(D)->getTemplateDepth() > TemplateArgs.getNumRetainedOuterLevels(). (But I wonder if we can clean this up by switching to always checking the template depth of D rather than sometimes checking the parent's template depth.)

[davidstone]

Take into account Richard's comments

[davidstone]

Ping

[davidstone]

Is there anything else I need to do to help move this forward?

[erichkeane]

From my look, this seems to fix the problem, and covers the case that Richard brought up, and I have no comments, so I think I'm happy with it. Please give Richard/Aaron ~24 hrs to take a look before committing.

[jloser]

Would love to see this cherry-picked into the llvm 14 release branch if possible!

[rsmith]

LGTM.

Please also add something like this as a unit test:

In D99134#2643441, @rsmith wrote:

template<typename T> int x = [](auto){ return T(); }.operator()(T());
int y = x<int>;

[davidstone]

Add unit test requested by Richard Smith

[rsmith]

Looks good. Do you need someone to land this for you?

[davidstone]

In D99134#3331259, @rsmith wrote:

Looks good. Do you need someone to land this for you?

Yes, I do.

[erichkeane]

In D99134#3331359, @davidstone wrote:

In D99134#3331259, @rsmith wrote:

Looks good. Do you need someone to land this for you?

Yes, I do.

I'll do that for you, working on it now.

[erichkeane]

In D99134#3311363, @jloser wrote:

Would love to see this cherry-picked into the llvm 14 release branch if possible!

I believe there is a bug in github that you can use to request that. This just landed as 0bff3a965022647fcdd17cc8f2217f5a2cd30b4c

clang/lib/Sema/SemaTemplateInstantiateDecl.cpp

NamedDecl *Sema::FindInstantiatedDecl(SourceLocation Loc, NamedDecl *D,
   if (isa<ParmVarDecl>(D) && !ParentDependsOnArgs &&
       !cast<ParmVarDecl>(D)->getType()->isInstantiationDependentType())
     return D;
   if (isa<ParmVarDecl>(D) || isa<NonTypeTemplateParmDecl>(D) ||
       isa<TemplateTypeParmDecl>(D) || isa<TemplateTemplateParmDecl>(D) ||
       (ParentDependsOnArgs && (ParentDC->isFunctionOrMethod() ||
                                isa<OMPDeclareReductionDecl>(ParentDC) ||
                                isa<OMPDeclareMapperDecl>(ParentDC))) ||
-      (isa<CXXRecordDecl>(D) && cast<CXXRecordDecl>(D)->isLambda())) {
+      (isa<CXXRecordDecl>(D) && cast<CXXRecordDecl>(D)->isLambda() &&
+       cast<CXXRecordDecl>(D)->getTemplateDepth() >
+           TemplateArgs.getNumRetainedOuterLevels())) {
     // D is a local of some kind. Look into the map of local
     // declarations to their instantiations.
     if (CurrentInstantiationScope) {
       if (auto Found = CurrentInstantiationScope->findInstantiationOf(D)) {
         if (Decl *FD = Found->dyn_cast<Decl *>())
           return cast<NamedDecl>(FD);
 
         int PackIdx = ArgumentPackSubstitutionIndex;

clang/test/SemaCXX/lambdas-implicit-explicit-template.cpp

 void c1() {
   b1([&](auto i) {});
 }
 
 void c2() {
   const auto lambda = [&](auto arg1) {};
   [&](auto arg2) { lambda.operator()(arg2); }(0);
 }
+
+auto d = [](auto) {};
+
+template <typename T>
+void d1(T x) { d.operator()(x); }
+
+void d2() { d1(0); }