| Message ID | 664f443b.620a0220.3bb2.27d7@mx.google.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/2] c++/modules: Fix treatment of unnamed types | expand |
On 5/23/24 09:27, Nathaniel Shead wrote: > On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 06:00:09PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: >> On 5/17/24 02:14, Nathaniel Shead wrote: >>> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 06:21:48PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: >>>> On 5/12/24 22:58, Nathaniel Shead wrote: >>>>> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, OK for trunk? >>>> >>>> OK. >>>> >>> >>> I realised as I was looking over this again that I might have spoken too >>> soon with the header unit example being supported. Doing the following: >>> >>> // a.H >>> struct { int y; } s; >>> decltype(s) f(decltype(s)); // { dg-error "used but never defined" } >>> inline auto x = f({ 123 }); >>> // b.C >>> struct {} unrelated; >>> import "a.H"; >>> decltype(s) f(decltype(s) x) { >>> return { 456 + x.y }; >>> } >>> >>> // c.C >>> import "linkage-3_a.H"; >>> int main() { auto a = x.y; } >>> >>> Actually does fail to link, because in 'c.C' we call 'f(.anon_0)' but >>> the definition 'b.C' is f(.anon_1). >>> >>> I don't think this is fixable, so I don't think this direction is >>> workable. >> >> Since namespace-scope anonymous types are TU-local, we don't need to support >> that for proper modules, but it's not clear to me that we don't need to >> support it for header units. >> >> OTOH, https://eel.is/c++draft/module#import-5.3 allows c.C to import a >> different header unit than b.C, in which case the type is different and x >> violates the odr. >> > > Right; I think at this stage I don't know how to support this for header > units (and even for module interface units it doesn't actually work; > more on this below), so I think saying that this is actually an ODR > violation is OK. > >>> That said, I think that it might still be worth making header modules >>> satisfy 'module_has_cmi_p', since that is true to the name, and will be >>> useful in other places we currently use 'module_p ()': in which case we >>> could instead make all the callers in 'no_linkage_check' do >>> 'module_maybe_has_cmi_p () && !header_module_p ()'; something like the >>> following, perhaps? >> >> If we need that condition, it should be its own predicate rather than >> expecting callers to do that combined check. >> >> But it's not clear to me how this is different from a type in the GMF of a >> named module, which is exactly the maybe_has_cmi case; there we could again >> see a different version of the type if another TU includes the header. >> >> Jason >> > > This made me go back and double-check for named modules and it actually > does fail as well; the following sample ICEs, even: > > export module M; > struct {} s; > int h(decltype(s)); > int x = h(s); // ICE in write_unnamed_type_name, cp/mangle.cc:1806 > > So I think maybe the way to go here is to just not treat unnamed types > as something that could possibly be accessed from a different TU, like > the below. Then we don't need to do the special handling for header > units, since as you say, they're not materially different anyway. > Thoughts? Sounds good. > (And I've moved the original change to 'module_has_cmi_p' to a separate > patch given it's somewhat unrelated now.) > > Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, OK for trunk (and > maybe 14.2)? > > -- >8 -- > > In r14-9530 we relaxed "depending on type with no-linkage" errors for > declarations that could actually be accessed from different TUs anyway. > However, this also enabled it for unnamed types, which never work. > > In a normal module interface, an unnamed type is TU-local by > [basic.link] p15.2, and so cannot be exposed or the program is > ill-formed. We don't yet implement this checking but we should assume > that we will later; currently supporting this actually causes ICEs when > attempting to create the mangled name in some situations. > > For a header unit, by [module.import] p5.3 it is unspecified whether two > TUs importing a header unit providing such a declaration are importing > the same header unit. In this case, we would require name mangling > changes to somehow allow the (anonymous) type exported by such a header > unit to correspond across different TUs in the presence of other > anonymous declarations, so for this patch just assume that this case > would be an ODR violation instead. > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-2.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-2.C > index eb4d7b051af..f69bd7ff728 100644 > --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-2.C > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-2.C > @@ -13,14 +13,15 @@ namespace { > return A{}; > } > decltype(f()) g(); // { dg-error "used but never defined" } > - > - struct {} s; > - decltype(s) h(); // { dg-error "used but never defined" } > } > > export void use() { > g(); > - h(); The above changes seem undesirable; we should still give that error. > +// Additionally, unnamed types have no linkage but are also TU-local, > +// and thus cannot be in a module interface unit. > +// We don't yet implement this checking however. > +struct {} s; // { dg-error "TU-local" "" { xfail *-*-* } } The comment should clarify that the problem is the non-TU-local variable 's' exposing the TU-local type. If s is also TU-local (as the one in the anonymous namespace above) it's fine as long as s is not itself exposed. Why doesn't the exposure code catch this? I guess the code in make_dependency to mark internal types needs to handle anonymous types as well. Jason
On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 03:36:48PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 5/23/24 09:27, Nathaniel Shead wrote: > > On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 06:00:09PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > > > On 5/17/24 02:14, Nathaniel Shead wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 06:21:48PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > > > > > On 5/12/24 22:58, Nathaniel Shead wrote: > > > > > > Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, OK for trunk? > > > > > > > > > > OK. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I realised as I was looking over this again that I might have spoken too > > > > soon with the header unit example being supported. Doing the following: > > > > > > > > // a.H > > > > struct { int y; } s; > > > > decltype(s) f(decltype(s)); // { dg-error "used but never defined" } > > > > inline auto x = f({ 123 }); > > > > // b.C > > > > struct {} unrelated; > > > > import "a.H"; > > > > decltype(s) f(decltype(s) x) { > > > > return { 456 + x.y }; > > > > } > > > > > > > > // c.C > > > > import "linkage-3_a.H"; > > > > int main() { auto a = x.y; } > > > > > > > > Actually does fail to link, because in 'c.C' we call 'f(.anon_0)' but > > > > the definition 'b.C' is f(.anon_1). > > > > > > > > I don't think this is fixable, so I don't think this direction is > > > > workable. > > > > > > Since namespace-scope anonymous types are TU-local, we don't need to support > > > that for proper modules, but it's not clear to me that we don't need to > > > support it for header units. > > > > > > OTOH, https://eel.is/c++draft/module#import-5.3 allows c.C to import a > > > different header unit than b.C, in which case the type is different and x > > > violates the odr. > > > > > > > Right; I think at this stage I don't know how to support this for header > > units (and even for module interface units it doesn't actually work; > > more on this below), so I think saying that this is actually an ODR > > violation is OK. > > > > > > That said, I think that it might still be worth making header modules > > > > satisfy 'module_has_cmi_p', since that is true to the name, and will be > > > > useful in other places we currently use 'module_p ()': in which case we > > > > could instead make all the callers in 'no_linkage_check' do > > > > 'module_maybe_has_cmi_p () && !header_module_p ()'; something like the > > > > following, perhaps? > > > > > > If we need that condition, it should be its own predicate rather than > > > expecting callers to do that combined check. > > > > > > But it's not clear to me how this is different from a type in the GMF of a > > > named module, which is exactly the maybe_has_cmi case; there we could again > > > see a different version of the type if another TU includes the header. > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > This made me go back and double-check for named modules and it actually > > does fail as well; the following sample ICEs, even: > > > > export module M; > > struct {} s; > > int h(decltype(s)); > > int x = h(s); // ICE in write_unnamed_type_name, cp/mangle.cc:1806 > > > > So I think maybe the way to go here is to just not treat unnamed types > > as something that could possibly be accessed from a different TU, like > > the below. Then we don't need to do the special handling for header > > units, since as you say, they're not materially different anyway. > > Thoughts? > > Sounds good. > > > (And I've moved the original change to 'module_has_cmi_p' to a separate > > patch given it's somewhat unrelated now.) > > > > Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, OK for trunk (and > > maybe 14.2)? > > > > -- >8 -- > > > > In r14-9530 we relaxed "depending on type with no-linkage" errors for > > declarations that could actually be accessed from different TUs anyway. > > However, this also enabled it for unnamed types, which never work. > > > > In a normal module interface, an unnamed type is TU-local by > > [basic.link] p15.2, and so cannot be exposed or the program is > > ill-formed. We don't yet implement this checking but we should assume > > that we will later; currently supporting this actually causes ICEs when > > attempting to create the mangled name in some situations. > > > > For a header unit, by [module.import] p5.3 it is unspecified whether two > > TUs importing a header unit providing such a declaration are importing > > the same header unit. In this case, we would require name mangling > > changes to somehow allow the (anonymous) type exported by such a header > > unit to correspond across different TUs in the presence of other > > anonymous declarations, so for this patch just assume that this case > > would be an ODR violation instead. > > > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-2.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-2.C > > index eb4d7b051af..f69bd7ff728 100644 > > --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-2.C > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-2.C > > @@ -13,14 +13,15 @@ namespace { > > return A{}; > > } > > decltype(f()) g(); // { dg-error "used but never defined" } > > - > > - struct {} s; > > - decltype(s) h(); // { dg-error "used but never defined" } > > } > > export void use() { > > g(); > > - h(); > > The above changes seem undesirable; we should still give that error. > Oh whoops, I don't know why I got rid of those test cases; added back in and they still correctly error. > > +// Additionally, unnamed types have no linkage but are also TU-local, > > +// and thus cannot be in a module interface unit. > > +// We don't yet implement this checking however. > > +struct {} s; // { dg-error "TU-local" "" { xfail *-*-* } } > > The comment should clarify that the problem is the non-TU-local variable 's' > exposing the TU-local type. If s is also TU-local (as the one in the > anonymous namespace above) it's fine as long as s is not itself exposed. > Done. > Why doesn't the exposure code catch this? I guess the code in > make_dependency to mark internal types needs to handle anonymous types as > well. > > Jason > Yes, the current code is pretty limited in how it determines what an exposure is: currently it just finds 'internal linkage', determined exclusively by either being in an anonymous namespace or being marked 'static', which is not always correct. I'd been looking into fixing up 'decl_linkage' to understand the C++11 meaning of 'internal linkage' and using that instead, and additionally for 'export'-declarations, but I've run into a couple of issues with the dynamic way that TREE_PUBLIC is set/unset on things and when 'decl_linkage' is actually called for other purposes, so it'll take me some time to work that out. (And that's just for internal linkage; it still doesn't handle other TU-local types like this). Regardless, here's the patch with a new version of the testcase; tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, OK for trunk/14.2? -- >8 -- In r14-9530 we relaxed "depending on type with no-linkage" errors for declarations that could actually be accessed from different TUs anyway. However, this also enabled it for unnamed types, which never work. In a normal module interface, an unnamed type is TU-local by [basic.link] p15.2, and so cannot be exposed or the program is ill-formed. We don't yet implement this checking but we should assume that we will later; currently supporting this actually causes ICEs when attempting to create the mangled name in some situations. For a header unit, by [module.import] p5.3 it is unspecified whether two TUs importing a header unit providing such a declaration are importing the same header unit. In this case, we would require name mangling changes to somehow allow the (anonymous) type exported by such a header unit to correspond across different TUs in the presence of other anonymous declarations, so for this patch just assume that this case would be an ODR violation instead. gcc/cp/ChangeLog: * tree.cc (no_linkage_check): Anonymous types can't be accessed in a different TU. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_a.C: Remove anonymous type test. * g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_b.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_c.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/modules/linkage-2.C: Add note about anonymous types. Signed-off-by: Nathaniel Shead <nathanieloshead@gmail.com> --- gcc/cp/tree.cc | 10 +--------- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_a.C | 4 ---- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_b.C | 1 - gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_c.C | 1 - gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-2.C | 6 ++++++ 5 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/cp/tree.cc b/gcc/cp/tree.cc index 0485a618c6c..fe3f034d000 100644 --- a/gcc/cp/tree.cc +++ b/gcc/cp/tree.cc @@ -2988,15 +2988,7 @@ no_linkage_check (tree t, bool relaxed_p) /* Only treat unnamed types as having no linkage if they're at namespace scope. This is core issue 966. */ if (TYPE_UNNAMED_P (t) && TYPE_NAMESPACE_SCOPE_P (t)) - { - if (relaxed_p - && TREE_PUBLIC (CP_TYPE_CONTEXT (t)) - && module_maybe_has_cmi_p ()) - /* This type could possibly be accessed outside this TU. */ - return NULL_TREE; - else - return t; - } + return t; for (r = CP_TYPE_CONTEXT (t); ; ) { diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_a.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_a.C index 750e31ff347..1d81312e94f 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_a.C +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_a.C @@ -9,7 +9,3 @@ auto f() { } decltype(f()) g(); // { dg-warning "used but not defined" "" { target c++17_down } } export auto x = g(); - -struct {} s; -decltype(s) h(); // { dg-warning "used but not defined" "" { target c++17_down } } -export auto y = h(); diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_b.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_b.C index f23962d76b7..5bc0d1b888d 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_b.C +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_b.C @@ -3,4 +3,3 @@ module M; decltype(f()) g() { return {}; } -decltype(s) h() { return {}; } diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_c.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_c.C index f1406b99032..9ff1491b67e 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_c.C +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_c.C @@ -5,5 +5,4 @@ import M; int main() { auto a = x; - auto b = y; } diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-2.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-2.C index eb4d7b051af..d913d6a30fc 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-2.C +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-2.C @@ -23,4 +23,10 @@ export void use() { h(); } +// Additionally, unnamed types have no linkage but are also TU-local, and thus +// cannot be exposed in a module interface unit. The non-TU-local entity 's' +// here is an exposure of this type, so this should be an error; we don't yet +// implement this checking however. +struct {} s; // { dg-error "TU-local" "" { xfail *-*-* } } + // { dg-prune-output "not writing module" }
On 5/23/24 21:27, Nathaniel Shead wrote: > On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 03:36:48PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: >> On 5/23/24 09:27, Nathaniel Shead wrote: >>> On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 06:00:09PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: >>>> On 5/17/24 02:14, Nathaniel Shead wrote: >>>>> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 06:21:48PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: >>>>>> On 5/12/24 22:58, Nathaniel Shead wrote: >>>>>>> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, OK for trunk? >>>>>> >>>>>> OK. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I realised as I was looking over this again that I might have spoken too >>>>> soon with the header unit example being supported. Doing the following: >>>>> >>>>> // a.H >>>>> struct { int y; } s; >>>>> decltype(s) f(decltype(s)); // { dg-error "used but never defined" } >>>>> inline auto x = f({ 123 }); >>>>> // b.C >>>>> struct {} unrelated; >>>>> import "a.H"; >>>>> decltype(s) f(decltype(s) x) { >>>>> return { 456 + x.y }; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> // c.C >>>>> import "linkage-3_a.H"; >>>>> int main() { auto a = x.y; } >>>>> >>>>> Actually does fail to link, because in 'c.C' we call 'f(.anon_0)' but >>>>> the definition 'b.C' is f(.anon_1). >>>>> >>>>> I don't think this is fixable, so I don't think this direction is >>>>> workable. >>>> >>>> Since namespace-scope anonymous types are TU-local, we don't need to support >>>> that for proper modules, but it's not clear to me that we don't need to >>>> support it for header units. >>>> >>>> OTOH, https://eel.is/c++draft/module#import-5.3 allows c.C to import a >>>> different header unit than b.C, in which case the type is different and x >>>> violates the odr. >>>> >>> >>> Right; I think at this stage I don't know how to support this for header >>> units (and even for module interface units it doesn't actually work; >>> more on this below), so I think saying that this is actually an ODR >>> violation is OK. >>> >>>>> That said, I think that it might still be worth making header modules >>>>> satisfy 'module_has_cmi_p', since that is true to the name, and will be >>>>> useful in other places we currently use 'module_p ()': in which case we >>>>> could instead make all the callers in 'no_linkage_check' do >>>>> 'module_maybe_has_cmi_p () && !header_module_p ()'; something like the >>>>> following, perhaps? >>>> >>>> If we need that condition, it should be its own predicate rather than >>>> expecting callers to do that combined check. >>>> >>>> But it's not clear to me how this is different from a type in the GMF of a >>>> named module, which is exactly the maybe_has_cmi case; there we could again >>>> see a different version of the type if another TU includes the header. >>>> >>>> Jason >>>> >>> >>> This made me go back and double-check for named modules and it actually >>> does fail as well; the following sample ICEs, even: >>> >>> export module M; >>> struct {} s; >>> int h(decltype(s)); >>> int x = h(s); // ICE in write_unnamed_type_name, cp/mangle.cc:1806 >>> >>> So I think maybe the way to go here is to just not treat unnamed types >>> as something that could possibly be accessed from a different TU, like >>> the below. Then we don't need to do the special handling for header >>> units, since as you say, they're not materially different anyway. >>> Thoughts? >> >> Sounds good. >> >>> (And I've moved the original change to 'module_has_cmi_p' to a separate >>> patch given it's somewhat unrelated now.) >>> >>> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, OK for trunk (and >>> maybe 14.2)? >>> >>> -- >8 -- >>> >>> In r14-9530 we relaxed "depending on type with no-linkage" errors for >>> declarations that could actually be accessed from different TUs anyway. >>> However, this also enabled it for unnamed types, which never work. >>> >>> In a normal module interface, an unnamed type is TU-local by >>> [basic.link] p15.2, and so cannot be exposed or the program is >>> ill-formed. We don't yet implement this checking but we should assume >>> that we will later; currently supporting this actually causes ICEs when >>> attempting to create the mangled name in some situations. >>> >>> For a header unit, by [module.import] p5.3 it is unspecified whether two >>> TUs importing a header unit providing such a declaration are importing >>> the same header unit. In this case, we would require name mangling >>> changes to somehow allow the (anonymous) type exported by such a header >>> unit to correspond across different TUs in the presence of other >>> anonymous declarations, so for this patch just assume that this case >>> would be an ODR violation instead. >>> >>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-2.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-2.C >>> index eb4d7b051af..f69bd7ff728 100644 >>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-2.C >>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-2.C >>> @@ -13,14 +13,15 @@ namespace { >>> return A{}; >>> } >>> decltype(f()) g(); // { dg-error "used but never defined" } >>> - >>> - struct {} s; >>> - decltype(s) h(); // { dg-error "used but never defined" } >>> } >>> export void use() { >>> g(); >>> - h(); >> >> The above changes seem undesirable; we should still give that error. >> > > Oh whoops, I don't know why I got rid of those test cases; added back in > and they still correctly error. > >>> +// Additionally, unnamed types have no linkage but are also TU-local, >>> +// and thus cannot be in a module interface unit. >>> +// We don't yet implement this checking however. >>> +struct {} s; // { dg-error "TU-local" "" { xfail *-*-* } } >> >> The comment should clarify that the problem is the non-TU-local variable 's' >> exposing the TU-local type. If s is also TU-local (as the one in the >> anonymous namespace above) it's fine as long as s is not itself exposed. >> > > Done. > >> Why doesn't the exposure code catch this? I guess the code in >> make_dependency to mark internal types needs to handle anonymous types as >> well. >> >> Jason >> > > Yes, the current code is pretty limited in how it determines what an > exposure is: currently it just finds 'internal linkage', determined > exclusively by either being in an anonymous namespace or being marked > 'static', which is not always correct. > > I'd been looking into fixing up 'decl_linkage' to understand the C++11 > meaning of 'internal linkage' and using that instead, and additionally > for 'export'-declarations, but I've run into a couple of issues with the > dynamic way that TREE_PUBLIC is set/unset on things and when > 'decl_linkage' is actually called for other purposes, so it'll take me > some time to work that out. (And that's just for internal linkage; it > still doesn't handle other TU-local types like this). > > Regardless, here's the patch with a new version of the testcase; tested > on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, OK for trunk/14.2? OK. > -- >8 -- > > In r14-9530 we relaxed "depending on type with no-linkage" errors for > declarations that could actually be accessed from different TUs anyway. > However, this also enabled it for unnamed types, which never work. > > In a normal module interface, an unnamed type is TU-local by > [basic.link] p15.2, and so cannot be exposed or the program is > ill-formed. We don't yet implement this checking but we should assume > that we will later; currently supporting this actually causes ICEs when > attempting to create the mangled name in some situations. > > For a header unit, by [module.import] p5.3 it is unspecified whether two > TUs importing a header unit providing such a declaration are importing > the same header unit. In this case, we would require name mangling > changes to somehow allow the (anonymous) type exported by such a header > unit to correspond across different TUs in the presence of other > anonymous declarations, so for this patch just assume that this case > would be an ODR violation instead. > > gcc/cp/ChangeLog: > > * tree.cc (no_linkage_check): Anonymous types can't be accessed > in a different TU. > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > * g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_a.C: Remove anonymous type test. > * g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_b.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_c.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/modules/linkage-2.C: Add note about anonymous types. > > Signed-off-by: Nathaniel Shead <nathanieloshead@gmail.com> > --- > gcc/cp/tree.cc | 10 +--------- > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_a.C | 4 ---- > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_b.C | 1 - > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_c.C | 1 - > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-2.C | 6 ++++++ > 5 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/gcc/cp/tree.cc b/gcc/cp/tree.cc > index 0485a618c6c..fe3f034d000 100644 > --- a/gcc/cp/tree.cc > +++ b/gcc/cp/tree.cc > @@ -2988,15 +2988,7 @@ no_linkage_check (tree t, bool relaxed_p) > /* Only treat unnamed types as having no linkage if they're at > namespace scope. This is core issue 966. */ > if (TYPE_UNNAMED_P (t) && TYPE_NAMESPACE_SCOPE_P (t)) > - { > - if (relaxed_p > - && TREE_PUBLIC (CP_TYPE_CONTEXT (t)) > - && module_maybe_has_cmi_p ()) > - /* This type could possibly be accessed outside this TU. */ > - return NULL_TREE; > - else > - return t; > - } > + return t; > > for (r = CP_TYPE_CONTEXT (t); ; ) > { > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_a.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_a.C > index 750e31ff347..1d81312e94f 100644 > --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_a.C > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_a.C > @@ -9,7 +9,3 @@ auto f() { > } > decltype(f()) g(); // { dg-warning "used but not defined" "" { target c++17_down } } > export auto x = g(); > - > -struct {} s; > -decltype(s) h(); // { dg-warning "used but not defined" "" { target c++17_down } } > -export auto y = h(); > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_b.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_b.C > index f23962d76b7..5bc0d1b888d 100644 > --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_b.C > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_b.C > @@ -3,4 +3,3 @@ > module M; > > decltype(f()) g() { return {}; } > -decltype(s) h() { return {}; } > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_c.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_c.C > index f1406b99032..9ff1491b67e 100644 > --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_c.C > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_c.C > @@ -5,5 +5,4 @@ import M; > > int main() { > auto a = x; > - auto b = y; > } > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-2.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-2.C > index eb4d7b051af..d913d6a30fc 100644 > --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-2.C > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-2.C > @@ -23,4 +23,10 @@ export void use() { > h(); > } > > +// Additionally, unnamed types have no linkage but are also TU-local, and thus > +// cannot be exposed in a module interface unit. The non-TU-local entity 's' > +// here is an exposure of this type, so this should be an error; we don't yet > +// implement this checking however. > +struct {} s; // { dg-error "TU-local" "" { xfail *-*-* } } > + > // { dg-prune-output "not writing module" }
diff --git a/gcc/cp/tree.cc b/gcc/cp/tree.cc index 9d37d255d8d..e2d0d3229c1 100644 --- a/gcc/cp/tree.cc +++ b/gcc/cp/tree.cc @@ -3016,15 +3016,7 @@ no_linkage_check (tree t, bool relaxed_p) /* Only treat unnamed types as having no linkage if they're at namespace scope. This is core issue 966. */ if (TYPE_UNNAMED_P (t) && TYPE_NAMESPACE_SCOPE_P (t)) - { - if (relaxed_p - && TREE_PUBLIC (CP_TYPE_CONTEXT (t)) - && module_maybe_has_cmi_p ()) - /* This type could possibly be accessed outside this TU. */ - return NULL_TREE; - else - return t; - } + return t; for (r = CP_TYPE_CONTEXT (t); ; ) { diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_a.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_a.C index 750e31ff347..1d81312e94f 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_a.C +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_a.C @@ -9,7 +9,3 @@ auto f() { } decltype(f()) g(); // { dg-warning "used but not defined" "" { target c++17_down } } export auto x = g(); - -struct {} s; -decltype(s) h(); // { dg-warning "used but not defined" "" { target c++17_down } } -export auto y = h(); diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_b.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_b.C index f23962d76b7..5bc0d1b888d 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_b.C +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_b.C @@ -3,4 +3,3 @@ module M; decltype(f()) g() { return {}; } -decltype(s) h() { return {}; } diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_c.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_c.C index f1406b99032..9ff1491b67e 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_c.C +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-1_c.C @@ -5,5 +5,4 @@ import M; int main() { auto a = x; - auto b = y; } diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-2.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-2.C index eb4d7b051af..f69bd7ff728 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-2.C +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/linkage-2.C @@ -13,14 +13,15 @@ namespace { return A{}; } decltype(f()) g(); // { dg-error "used but never defined" } - - struct {} s; - decltype(s) h(); // { dg-error "used but never defined" } } export void use() { g(); - h(); } +// Additionally, unnamed types have no linkage but are also TU-local, +// and thus cannot be in a module interface unit. +// We don't yet implement this checking however. +struct {} s; // { dg-error "TU-local" "" { xfail *-*-* } } + // { dg-prune-output "not writing module" }