Skip to content

[libc++] Avoid -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant in operator<=> #79465

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.

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 5 commits into from
Aug 21, 2024
Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
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
23 changes: 15 additions & 8 deletions libcxx/include/__compare/ordering.h
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -30,14 +30,20 @@ class partial_ordering;
class weak_ordering;
class strong_ordering;

template <class _Tp, class... _Args>
inline constexpr bool __one_of_v = (is_same_v<_Tp, _Args> || ...);

struct _CmpUnspecifiedParam {
_LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI constexpr _CmpUnspecifiedParam(int _CmpUnspecifiedParam::*) noexcept {}

template <class _Tp, class = enable_if_t<!__one_of_v<_Tp, int, partial_ordering, weak_ordering, strong_ordering>>>
_CmpUnspecifiedParam(_Tp) = delete;
// If anything other than a literal 0 is provided, the behavior is undefined by the Standard.
//
// The alternative to the `__enable_if__` attribute would be to use the fact that a pointer
// can be constructed from literal 0, but this conflicts with `-Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant`.
template <class _Tp, class = __enable_if_t<is_same_v<_Tp, int> > >
_LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI consteval _CmpUnspecifiedParam(_Tp __zero) noexcept
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This appears to have regressed our ability to detect comparisons against a const int:

constexpr int n = 0;
// Used to be rejected, now accepted.
(0 <=> 0) < n;

My suggestion from #43670 avoided this by providing a deleted constructor overload that takes an int lvalue; could we do something similar here?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

# if __has_attribute(__enable_if__)
__attribute__((__enable_if__(
__zero == 0, "Only literal 0 is allowed as the operand of a comparison with one of the ordering types")))
# endif
{
(void)__zero;
}
};

class partial_ordering {
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -269,7 +275,8 @@ inline constexpr strong_ordering strong_ordering::greater(_OrdResult::__greater)
/// The types partial_ordering, weak_ordering, and strong_ordering are
/// collectively termed the comparison category types.
template <class _Tp>
concept __comparison_category = __one_of_v<_Tp, partial_ordering, weak_ordering, strong_ordering>;
concept __comparison_category =
is_same_v<_Tp, partial_ordering> || is_same_v<_Tp, weak_ordering> || is_same_v<_Tp, strong_ordering>;

#endif // _LIBCPP_STD_VER >= 20

Expand Down
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
//
// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions.
// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
// SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception
//
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//

// UNSUPPORTED: c++03, c++11, c++14, c++17

// <compare>

// Ensure we reject all cases where an argument other than a literal 0 is used
// for a comparison against a comparison category type.

// Also ensure that we don't warn about providing a null pointer constant when
// comparing an ordering type against literal 0, since one of the common
// implementation strategies is to use a pointer as the "unspecified type".
// ADDITIONAL_COMPILE_FLAGS: -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant

#include <compare>

#include "test_macros.h"

#define TEST_FAIL(v, op) \
do { \
/* invalid types */ \
void(v op 0L); \
void(0L op v); \
void(v op 0.0); \
void(0.0 op v); \
void(v op nullptr); \
void(nullptr op v); \
/* invalid value */ \
void(v op 1); \
void(1 op v); \
/* value not known at compile-time */ \
int i = 0; \
void(v op i); \
void(i op v); \
} while (false)

#define TEST_PASS(v, op) \
do { \
void(v op 0); \
void(0 op v); \
LIBCPP_ONLY(void(v op(1 - 1))); \
LIBCPP_ONLY(void((1 - 1) op v)); \
} while (false)

template <typename T>
void test_category(T v) {
TEST_FAIL(v, ==); // expected-error 30 {{invalid operands to binary expression}}
TEST_FAIL(v, !=); // expected-error 30 {{invalid operands to binary expression}}
TEST_FAIL(v, <); // expected-error 30 {{invalid operands to binary expression}}
TEST_FAIL(v, <=); // expected-error 30 {{invalid operands to binary expression}}
TEST_FAIL(v, >); // expected-error 30 {{invalid operands to binary expression}}
TEST_FAIL(v, >=); // expected-error 30 {{invalid operands to binary expression}}
TEST_FAIL(v, <=>); // expected-error 30 {{invalid operands to binary expression}}

TEST_PASS(v, ==);
TEST_PASS(v, !=);
TEST_PASS(v, <);
TEST_PASS(v, >);
TEST_PASS(v, <=);
TEST_PASS(v, >=);
TEST_PASS(v, <=>);
}

void f() {
test_category(std::strong_ordering::equivalent);
test_category(std::weak_ordering::equivalent);
test_category(std::partial_ordering::equivalent);
}

This file was deleted.

Loading