[cfe-commits] [patch] pr9786 assert-on-invalid non-final parameter packs

David Blaikie dblaikie at gmail.com
Thu Oct 13 22:09:23 PDT 2011

>From the bug:

template<int ...Values, int After> struct X0nt;
X0nt<42> f();

Causes clang to fail an assertion (SemaTemplate.cpp:4868 - "Converted
template argument list is too short!"). This fix causes
CheckTemplateArgumentList to fail if there are parameter packs anywhere
other than the last argument in a non-partial application of the template
arguments (partial applications include function templates for which
non-final parameter packs may be valid. This change does not regress that
behavior as far as I know/as far as the test cases already cover it).

I've included a test for this fix.

As an added bonus, I've also fixed a minor quirk in the output of the
diagnostic that appears here ("template parameter pack must be the last
template parameter") - currently/without my patch, Clang produces this
diagnostic for every parameter after a parameter pack. So in the case of
"template<typename ...A, typename B, typename C> struct foo;" the error is
emitted twice (though, strangely, the second type it is produced it does not
provide the context/line location, though the line/col numbers are the same
& still correct). I've fixed that issue & modified a test case to catch it

Let me know if this looks good & I'll check it in,

- David

[for the record - gcc does something rather different with this invalid
construct. It produces special "invalid type" template arguments for
non-final parameter packs & then any instantiation of the template fails to
match any argument to that parameter & you get an extra diagnostic there,
too. I'm not entirely sure how Clang's error recovery works on the failure
path (returning Invalid from CheckTemplateArgumentList) works in this case
or how it compares to GCC's behavior.

I was considering having the original template parsing code actually modify
the template parameter list when it hit this invalid case - moving the
parameter pack to the end (or removing it in the case of multiple parameter
packs) for example - but I wasn't sure how to mutate the template parameter
list & whether that would be valid. Not to mention it could produce some
rather strange diagnostics later on. Though it would be more indicative of a
legitimate 'error recovery' scenario (the compiler assuming some valid
interpretation of the invalid code & then continuing on its way - rather
than just glossing over the details of this invalid template whenever it's
used) & could be supported by appropriate FixItHints... (might be nice to
add the FixIt anyway at some point (to move the parameter pack to the end))]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20111013/2b6cbfc8/attachment.html>

More information about the cfe-commits mailing list