Skip to content

[clang] Add tests from CWG156 to CWG1111 (dual-scope lookup for conversion-function-ids) #121654

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 5, 2025
Merged

[clang] Add tests from CWG156 to CWG1111 (dual-scope lookup for conversion-function-ids) #121654

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
dcd29ca
[clang] Add test for CWG156 "Name lookup for conversion functions"
Endilll Jan 4, 2025
1904c09
Merge CWG156 test into CWG111 test, and downgrade CWG1111 to partial
Endilll Jan 5, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
43 changes: 43 additions & 0 deletions clang/test/CXX/drs/cwg1xx.cpp
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -922,6 +922,49 @@ namespace cwg155 { // cwg155: dup 632
// expected-warning@-1 {{braces around scalar initializer}}
}

namespace cwg156 { // cwg156: partial
namespace ex1 {
struct A {
operator int();
} a;
void foo() {
typedef int T;
a.operator T(); // T is found using unqualified lookup
// after qualified lookup in A fails.
}
} // namespace ex1

namespace ex2 {
struct A {
typedef int T;
operator T();
};
struct B : A {
operator T();
} b;
void foo() {
b.A::operator T(); // FIXME: qualified lookup should find T in A.
// expected-error@-1 {{unknown type name 'T'}}
Copy link
Contributor

@cor3ntin cor3ntin Jan 5, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This seems to be #28181
Do we want to take a crack at it?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@Endilll Endilll Jan 5, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It is similar to that issue in a sense that T needs to undergo a qualified lookup, but the lookup context is different (nested name specifier here, type of the object expression there).

Do we want to take a crack at it?

Maybe, but not in this PR.

}
} // namespace ex2

namespace ex3 {
template <class T1> struct A {
operator T1();
};
template <class T2> struct B : A<T2> {
operator T2();
void foo() {
// In both cases, during instantiation, qualified lookup for T2 wouldn't be able
// to find anything, so T2 has to be found by unqualified lookup.
// After that, 'operator T2()' is found in A<T2> by qualfied lookup.
T2 a = A<T2>::operator T2();
T2 b = ((A<T2> *)this)->operator T2();
}
};
} // namespace ex3
} // namespace cwg156

// cwg158 is in cwg158.cpp

namespace cwg159 { // cwg159: 3.5
Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion clang/www/cxx_dr_status.html
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -981,7 +981,7 @@ <h2 id="cxxdr">C++ defect report implementation status</h2>
<td><a href="https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/156.html">156</a></td>
<td>NAD</td>
<td>Name lookup for conversion functions</td>
<td class="unknown" align="center">Unknown</td>
<td class="partial" align="center">Partial</td>
</tr>
<tr class="open" id="157">
<td><a href="https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/157.html">157</a></td>
Expand Down
Loading