Magic-Mirror/llvm-capstone
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/capstone-engine/llvm-capstone.git synced 2025-01-09 17:43:57 +00:00
Code Issues Actions 2 Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Add another compatibility note and tweak a few of the existing ones.

Browse Source 
llvm-svn: 98717
This commit is contained in:
John McCall 2010-03-17 07:10:56 +00:00
parent c4e3f05380
commit cb81625851
1 changed files with 61 additions and 37 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

98
clang/www/cxx_compatibility.html
View File

@ -23,7 +23,8 @@
<li><a href="#intro">Introduction</a></li>
<li><a href="#vla">Variable-length arrays</a></li>
<li><a href="#init_static_const">Initialization of non-integral static const data members within a class definition</a></li>
<li><a href="#dep_lookup">Dependent name lookup into dependent bases of class templates</a></li>
<li><a href="#dep_lookup">Unqualified lookup in templates</a></li>
<li><a href="#dep_lookup_bases">Unqualified lookup into dependent bases of class templates</a></li>
<li><a href="#default_init_const">Default initialization of const variable of a class type requires user-defined default constructor</a></li>
</ul>
@ -97,87 +98,110 @@ class SomeClass {
const double SomeClass::SomeConstant<b> = 0.5</b>;
</pre>
Note that the forthcoming C++0x standard will allow this.
<!-- ======================================================================= -->
<h2 id="dep_lookup">Dependent name lookup into dependent bases of class templates</h2>
<h2 id="dep_lookup">Unqualified lookup in templates</h2>
<!-- ======================================================================= -->
Some versions of GCC accept the following invalid code:
<pre>
template &lt;typename T&gt;
class Base {
public:
void DoThis(T x) {}
template &lt;typename T&gt; struct Foo {
void Work(T x) {
func(x);
}
};
...
void func(int x);
...
template struct Foo&lt;int&gt;; // or anything else that instantiates Foo&lt;int&gt;::Work
</pre>
The standard says that unqualified names like <tt>func</tt> are looked up
when the template is defined, not when it's instantiated. Since
<tt>void func(int)</tt> was not declared yet when <tt>Foo</tt> was
defined, it's not considered. The fix is usually to
declare <tt>func</tt> before <tt>Foo</tt>.
<p>This is complicated by <i>argument-dependent lookup</i> (ADL),
which is done when unqualified names are called as functions,
like <tt>func(x)</tt> above. The standard says that ADL is performed
in both places if any of the arguments are type-dependent, like
<tt>x</tt> is in this example. However, ADL does nothing for builtin
types like <tt>int</tt>, so the example is still invalid. See
[basic.lookup.argdep] for more information.
<!-- ======================================================================= -->
<h2 id="dep_lookup_bases">Unqualified lookup into dependent bases of class templates</h2>
<!-- ======================================================================= -->
Some versions of GCC accept the following invalid code:
<pre>
template &lt;typename T&gt; struct Base {
void DoThis(T x) {}
static void DoThat(T x) {}
};
template &lt;typename T&gt;
class Derived : public Base&lt;T&gt; {
public:
template &lt;typename T&gt; struct Derived : public Base&lt;T&gt; {
void Work(T x) {
DoThis(x); // Invalid!
DoThat(x); // Invalid!
}
};
void Test() {
Derived&lt;int&gt; d;
d.Work(42);
}
</pre>
Clang correctly rejects it with the following errors:
Clang correctly rejects it with the following errors
(when <tt>Derived</tt> is eventually instantiated):
<pre>
my_file.cpp:13:5: error: use of undeclared identifier 'DoThis'
my_file.cpp:8:5: error: use of undeclared identifier 'DoThis'
DoThis(x);
^
this-&gt;
my_file.cpp:20:5: note: in instantiation of member function 'Derived&lt;int&gt;::Work' requested here
d.Work(42);
^
my_file.cpp:4:8: note: must qualify identifier to find this declaration in dependent base class
my_file.cpp:2:8: note: must qualify identifier to find this declaration in dependent base class
void DoThis(T x) {}
^
my_file.cpp:14:5: error: use of undeclared identifier 'DoThat'
my_file.cpp:9:5: error: use of undeclared identifier 'DoThat'
DoThat(x);
^
this-&gt;
my_file.cpp:6:15: note: must qualify identifier to find this declaration in dependent base class
my_file.cpp:3:15: note: must qualify identifier to find this declaration in dependent base class
static void DoThat(T x) {}
</pre>
The reason the code is invalid is that in
class <tt>Derived&lt;T&gt;</tt>, the base class type <tt>Base&lt;T&gt;</tt>
depends on the template argument <tt>T</tt> (hence it's called a dependent base
class in C++ jargon), and C++ doesn't look at the members of a
dependent base class when resolving unqualified calls like <tt>DoThis(x)</tt>
and <tt>DoThat(x)</tt> (see [temp.dep] p3 for details). The fix, as Clang tells
you, is to prefix the calls with <tt>this-&gt;</tt>:
Like we said <a href="#dep_lookup">above</a>, unqualified names like
<tt>DoThis</tt> and <tt>DoThat</tt> are looked up when the template
<tt>Derived</tt> is defined, not when it's instantiated. When we look
up a name used in a class, we usually look into the base classes.
However, we can't look into the base class <tt>Base&lt;T&gt;</tt>
because its type depends on the template argument <tt>T</tt>, so the
standard says we should just ignore it. See [temp.dep]p3 for details.
<p>The fix, as Clang tells you, is to tell the compiler that we want a
class member by prefixing the calls with <tt>this-&gt;</tt>:
<pre>
...
template &lt;typename T&gt;
class Derived : public Base&lt;T&gt; {
public:
void Work(T x) {
<b>this-&gt;</b>DoThis(x);
<b>this-&gt;</b>DoThat(x);
}
};
...
</pre>
Alternatively, since DoThat() is a static method, you can also write
Alternatively, you can tell the compiler exactly where to look:
<pre>
void Work(T x) {
<b>this-&gt;</b>DoThis(x);
<b>Base&lt;T&gt;</b>::DoThis(x);
<b>Base&lt;T&gt;</b>::DoThat(x);
}
</pre>
This works whether the methods are static or not, but be careful:
if <tt>DoThis</tt> is virtual, calling it this way will bypass virtual
dispatch!
<!-- ======================================================================= -->
<h2 id="default_init_const">Default initialization of const variable of a class type requires user-defined default constructor</h2>
<!-- ======================================================================= -->