This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Doc question: is "templatized" a word?

On 15 February 2017 at 15:53, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Jonathan Wakely <> wrote:
>> On 11 February 2017 at 20:36, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>>> On 02/11/2017 06:21 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>>> On 11 February 2017 at 08:48, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>>>>>> The documentation for -Wno-non-template-friend refers to
>>>>>> "non-templatized
>>>>>> friend functions" and "templatized functions".  I don't see the term
>>>>>> "templatized" used anywhere in the C++ standard.  This paragraph also
>>>>>> uses
>>>>>> "nontemplate function", which I assume refers to the same thing the C++
>>>>>> standard spells "non-template function".  So does "non-templatized
>>>>>> function"
>>>>>> also mean "non-template function"?  Or does it have some other meaning?
>>>>> I would avoid "templatized" and believe "non-template function" is
>>>>> more appropriate in your example.
>>>> Yes,
>>>> s/non-templatized/non-template/
>>>> s/nontemplate/non-template/
>>>> s/templatized function/function template/
>>>> But I wonder if that warning is even useful nowadays. The example of
>>>> "friend foo(int);" is bogus and is correctly rejected:
>>>> error: ISO C++ forbids declaration of ‘foo’ with no type
>>>> [-fpermissive]
>>>>     friend foo(int);
>>>>                   ^
>>> I hadn't actually gotten that far :-) but it looks like that's an
>>> implicit-int error unrelated to the actual purpose of this option.
>>> This ended up on my todo list firstly because "templatized" didn't
>>> spell-check, and secondly because the "new compiler behavior" documented in
>>> connection with this option has existed at least since 1998 and can hardly
>>> be considered "new" any more.  Also I think the reference to section 14.5.3
>>> of the C++ standard is bit-rotten (it's 14.5.4 in the c++0x draft I have
>>> handy).
>>> I'll leave it up to the C++ experts to decide whether the option should just
>>> be removed and the warning replaced with a hard error controlled by some
>>> other flag.
>> It definitely shouldn't be turned into a hard error, the warning
>> complains about valid code, such as:
>> template<typename T> struct A {
>>   friend int foo(T);
>> };
>> int main() {
>>   A<int> a;
>> }
>> I think it warns because the meaning of that code changed, a *long*
>> time ago, so it's saying "if you wrote this code in the 1990s it might
>> do something different to what you expect."
>> I'm not sure how useful that warning is now, although EDG warns for it
>> too (with a fix-it hint that I think is bogus):
>> "", line 2: warning: "int foo(T)" declares a non-template function -- add
>>           <> to refer to a template instance
>>     friend int foo(T);
>>                ^
> That fix-it looks fine to me;

Where should I add the <> to make it valid?

If I change the example to "friend int foo<>(T);" EDG says it's not a template:

template<typename T> struct A {
  friend int foo<>(T);

int main() {
  A<int> a;

"", line 2: error: foo is not a template
    friend int foo<>(T);

1 error detected in the compilation of "".

I don't think I understand what this kind of friend declarationdoes,
or what the warning is for, so if you think it's still useful I'm
happy with that :-)

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]