This program works as expected:
#include <iostream>
template <typename T>
void output(T t) {
prt(t);
}
struct It {
It(int* p) : p(p) {}
int* p;
};
void prt(It it) {
std::cout << *(it.p) << std::endl;
}
int main() {
int val = 12;
It it(&val);
output(it);
return 0;
}
When you compile and execute this, it prints "12" as it should. Even though the function prt, required by the output template function, is defined after output, prt is visible at the point of instantiation, and therefore everything works.
The program below is very similar to the program above, but it fails to compile:
#include <iostream>
template <typename T>
void output(T t) {
prt(t);
}
void prt(int* p) {
std::cout << (*p) << std::endl;
}
int main() {
int val = 12;
output(&val);
return 0;
}
This code is trying to do the same thing as the previous example, but this fails in gcc 8.2 with the error message:
'prt' was not declared in this scope, and no declarations were found by
argument-dependent lookup at the point of instantiation [-fpermissive]
The only thing that changed is that the argument passed to output is a built-in type, rather than a user-defined type. But I didn't think that should matter for name resolution. So my question is: 1) why does the second example fail?; and 2) why does one example fail and the other succeeds?
The Standard rule that applies here is found in [temp.dep.candidate]:
For a function call where the postfix-expression is a dependent name, the candidate functions are found using the usual lookup rules ([basic.lookup.unqual], [basic.lookup.argdep]) except that:
For the part of the lookup using unqualified name lookup, only function declarations from the template definition context are found.
For the part of the lookup using associated namespaces ([basic.lookup.argdep]), only function declarations found in either the template definition context or the template instantiation context are found.
In both examples, unqualified name lookup finds no declarations of prt, since there were no such declarations before the point where the template was defined. So we move on to argument-dependent lookup, which looks only in the associated namespaces of the argument types.
Class It is a member of the global namespace, so the global namespace is the one associated namespace, and the one declaration is visible within that namespace in the template instantiation context.
A pointer type U* has the same associated namespaces as type U, and a fundamental type has no associated namespaces at all. So since the only argument type int* is a pointer to fundamental type, there are no associated namespaces, and argument-dependent lookup can't possibly find any declarations in the second program.
I can't exactly say why the rules were designed this way, but I would guess the intent is that a template should either use the specific declared functions it meant to use, or else use a function as an extensible customization point, but those user customizations need to be closely related to a user-defined type they will work with. Otherwise, it becomes possible to change the behavior of a template that really meant to use one specific function or function template declaration by providing a better overload for some particular case. Admittedly, this is more from the viewpoint of when there is at least one declaration in the template definition context, not when that lookup finds nothing at all, but then we get into cases where SFINAE was counting on not finding something, etc.
Related
Let's say I have a template function:
template <class T>
void tfoo( T t )
{
foo( t );
}
later I want to use it with a type, so I declare/define a function and try to call it:
void foo( int );
int main()
{
tfoo(1);
}
and I am getting error from g++:
‘foo’ was not declared in this scope, and no declarations were found by argument-dependent lookup at the point of instantiation [-fpermissive]
foo( t );
why it cannot find void foo(int) at the point of instantiation? It is declared at that point. Is there a way to make it work (without moving declaration of foo before template)?
foo in your case is a dependent name, since function choice depends on the type if the argument and the argument type depends on the template parameter. This means that foo is looked up in accordance with the rules of dependent lookup.
The difference between dependent and non-dependent lookup is that in case of dependent lookup ADL-nominated namespaces are seen as extended: they are extended with extra names visible from the point of template instantiation (tfoo call in your case). That includes the names, which appeared after the template declaration. The key point here is that only ADL-nominated namespaces are extended in this way.
(By ADL-nominated namespace I refer to namespace associated with function argument type and therefore brought into consideration by the rules of dependent name lookup. See "3.4.2 Argument-dependent name lookup")
In your case the argument has type int. int is a fundamental type. Fundamental types do not have associated namespaces (see "3.4.2 Argument-dependent name lookup"), which means that it does not nominate any namespace through ADL. In your example ADL is not involved at all. Dependent name lookup for foo in this case is no different from non-dependent lookup. It will not be able to see your foo, since it is declared below the template.
Note the difference with the following example
template <class T> void tfoo( T t )
{
foo( t );
}
struct S {};
void foo(S s) {}
int main()
{
S s;
tfoo(s);
}
This code will compile since argument type S is a class type. It has an associated namespace - the global one - and it adds (nominates) that global namespace for dependent name lookup. Such ADL-nominated namespaces are seen by dependent lookup in their updated form (as seen from the point of the call). This is why the lookup can see foo and completes successfully.
It is a rather widespread misconception when people believe that the second phase of so called "two-phase lookup" should be able to see everything that was additionally declared below template definition all the way to the point of instantiation (point of the call in this case).
No, the second phase does not see everything. It can see the extra stuff only in namespaces associated with function arguments. All other namespaces do not get updated. They are seen as if observed from the point of template definition.
Consider the code below:
#include <utility>
void f(int, int);
void g(int, int);
struct functor
{
template<typename... T>
void operator()(T&&... params)
{
return f(std::forward<T>(params)...);
}
};
int main()
{
functor()(1); // can use the default value here, why?!
// g(1); // error here as expected, too few arguments
}
void f(int a, int b = 42) {}
void g(int a, int b = 24) {}
This is a thin wrapper around a function call. However, inside functor::operator(), f doesn't have its default value for the second parameter known (it is visible only after main, in the definition), so the code should not compile. g++5.2 compiles it successfully though, but clang++ spits out the expected message that one expects for compilers that perform the two-phase name lookup correctly:
error: call to function 'f' that is neither visible in the
template definition nor found by argument-dependent lookup
return f(std::forward(params)...);
Is this a gcc bug or I am missing something here? I.e., is the point of instantiation after the definition of f below main()? But even in this case, it shouldn't work, as at the second phase the function can only be found via ADL, which is not the case here.
[temp.dep.candidate]:
For a function call where the postfix-expression is a dependent name, the candidate functions are found using the usual lookup rules ([basic.lookup.unqual], [basic.lookup.argdep]) except that:
For the part of the lookup using unqualified name lookup ([basic.lookup.unqual]), only function declarations from the template definition context are found.
For the part of the lookup using associated namespaces ([basic.lookup.argdep]), only function declarations found in either the template definition context or the template instantiation context are found.
If the call would be ill-formed or would find a better match had the lookup within the associated namespaces
considered all the function declarations with external linkage introduced in those namespaces in all translation units, not just considering those declarations found in the template definition and template instantiation
contexts, then the program has undefined behavior.
Note that ADL is not even working here, as the involved types are fundamental (their set of associated namespaces is empty).
This is very similar to this question, but I'm not sure the answer there is entirely applicable to the minimal code I've put together that demonstrates the issue. (My code does not use trailing-return types, and there are some other differences as well.) Additionally, the issue of whether MSVC's behavior is legal doesn't seem to be addressed.
In short, I'm seeing the compiler select a generic function template instantiation rather than a more-specific overload when the function template is inside a namespace.
Consider the following set of namespace and class definitions:
namespace DoStuffUtilNamespace
{
template<typename UNKNOWN>
void doStuff(UNKNOWN& foo)
{
static_assert(sizeof(UNKNOWN) == -1, "CANNOT USE DEFAULT INSTANTIATION!");
}
}
class UtilForDoingStuff
{
public:
template <typename UNKNOWN>
void doStuffWithObjectRef(UNKNOWN& ref)
{
DoStuffUtilNamespace::doStuff(ref);
}
};
class MyClassThatCanDoStuff { };
namespace DoStuffUtilNamespace
{
using ::MyClassThatCanDoStuff; // No effect.
void doStuff(MyClassThatCanDoStuff& foo) { /* No assertion! */ }
}
... and the following use-cases:
int main()
{
MyClassThatCanDoStuff foo;
DoStuffUtilNamespace::MyClassThatCanDoStuff scoped_foo;
UtilForDoingStuff util;
DoStuffUtilNamespace::doStuff(foo); // Compiles
DoStuffUtilNamespace::doStuff(scoped_foo); // Compiles
util.doStuffWithObjectRef(foo); // Triggers static assert
util.doStuffWithObjectRef(scoped_foo); // Triggers static assert
}
If the entire DoStuffUtilNamespace is eliminated and all its members are moved to global scope, this compiles fine with G++ and Clang++.
With the namespace, doStuff is of course a dependent name. According to the top-voted answer on the similar question, the standard says:
In resolving dependent names, names from the following sources are considered:
Declarations that are visible at the point of definition of the template.
Declarations from namespaces associated with the types of the function arguments both from the instantiation context and from the definition context.
This seems a little odd to me; I don't understand why the first bullet point would specify that the declarations must be visible at the point of definition of the template rather than at the point of instantiation, since the second bullet point explicitly specifies that some declarations visible only at the point of instantiation are allowed. (If someone would like to offer a rationale, I'd appreciate it, but that's not my question because it's my understanding that questions of the form "why did the standards committee decide X" are off topic.)
So I think that explains why util.doStuffWithObjectRef(foo); triggers the static assertion: doStuff(MyClassThatCanDoStuff&) hasn't been declared at the point of definition of UtilForDoingStuff::doStuffWithObjectRef<UNKNOWN>(UNKNOWN&). And indeed moving the class UtilForDoingStuff definition after the doStuff overload has been defined seems to fix the issue.
But what exactly does the standard mean by "namespaces associated with the types of the function arguments"? Shouldn't the using ::MyClassThatCanDoStuff declaration, together with the explicit scoping of the scoped_foo instance type within the namespace, trigger argument-dependent lookup, and shouldn't this look-up find the non-asserting definition of doStuff()?
Also, the entire code is compiled without error using clang++ -ftemplate-delayed-parsing, which emulates MSVC's template-parsing behavior. This seems preferable, at least in this particular case, because the ability to add new declarations to a namespace at any time is one of the primary appeals of namespaces. But, as noted above, it doesn't quite seem to follow the letter of the law, according to the standard. Is it permissible, or is it an instance of non-conformance?
EDIT:: As pointed out by KIIV, there is a workaround; the code compiles if template specialization is used instead of overloading. I would still like to know the answers to my questions about the standard.
With the namespace, doStuff is of course a dependent name.
You are starting from the wrong premise. There is no ADL for a qualified call like DoStuffUtilNamespace::doStuff(ref). [basic.lookup.argdep]/p1, emphasis mine:
When the postfix-expression in a function call (5.2.2) is an
unqualified-id, other namespaces not considered during the usual
unqualified lookup (3.4.1) may be searched, and in those namespaces,
namespace-scope friend function or function template declarations
(11.3) not otherwise visible may be found.
DoStuffUtilNamespace::doStuff is a qualified-id, not an unqualified-id. ADL doesn't apply.
For this reason, DoStuffUtilNamespace::doStuff is also not a dependent name. [temp.dep]/p1:
In an expression of the form:
postfix-expression ( expression-listopt)
where the postfix-expression is an unqualified-id, the
unqualified-id denotes a dependent name if [...]. If an operand of an operator is a type-dependent expression, the operator also denotes
a dependent name. Such names are unbound and are looked up at the
point of the template instantiation (14.6.4.1) in both the context of
the template definition and the context of the point of instantiation
(The italicization of dependent name indicate that this paragraph is defining the term.)
Instead, per [temp.nondep]/p1:
Non-dependent names used in a template definition are found using the
usual name lookup and bound at the point they are used.
which doesn't find your later overload declaration.
Specialization works because it's still the same function template declaration that's used; you just supplied a different implementation than the default one.
But what exactly does the standard mean by "namespaces associated with
the types of the function arguments"? Shouldn't the using ::MyClassThatCanDoStuff declaration, together
with the explicit scoping of the scoped_foo instance type within the
namespace, trigger argument-dependent lookup
No. using-declarations do not affect ADL. [basic.lookup.argdep]/p2, emphasis mine:
For each argument type T in the function call, there is a set of
zero or more associated namespaces and a set of zero or more
associated classes to be considered. The sets of namespaces and
classes is determined entirely by the types of the function arguments
(and the namespace of any template template argument).
Typedef names and using-declarations used to specify the types do not contribute to this set. The sets of namespaces and classes are
determined in the following way:
If T is a fundamental type, [...]
If T is a class type (including unions), its associated classes are: the class itself; the class of which it is a member, if any; and its
direct and indirect base classes. Its associated namespaces are the
innermost enclosing namespaces of its associated classes. Furthermore,
if T is a class template specialization, its associated namespaces and
classes also include: the namespaces and classes associated with the
types of the template arguments provided for template type parameters
(excluding template template parameters); the namespaces of which any
template template arguments are members; and the classes of which any
member templates used as template template arguments are members. [
Note: Non-type template arguments do not contribute to the set of associated namespaces. —end note ]
[...]
With template specialization I can get it work:
namespace DoStuffUtilNamespace
{
template<typename UNKNOWN>
void doStuff(UNKNOWN& foo)
{
static_assert(sizeof(UNKNOWN) == -1, "CANNOT USE DEFAULT INSTANTIATION!");
}
}
class UtilForDoingStuff
{
public:
template <typename UNKNOWN>
void doStuffWithObjectRef(UNKNOWN& ref)
{
DoStuffUtilNamespace::doStuff(ref);
}
};
class MyClassThatCanDoStuff { };
namespace DoStuffUtilNamespace
{
using ::MyClassThatCanDoStuff;
template <> void doStuff<MyClassThatCanDoStuff>(MyClassThatCanDoStuff& foo) { /* No assertion! */ }
}
int main()
{
MyClassThatCanDoStuff foo;
DoStuffUtilNamespace::MyClassThatCanDoStuff scoped_foo;
UtilForDoingStuff util;
DoStuffUtilNamespace::doStuff(foo); // Compiles
DoStuffUtilNamespace::doStuff(scoped_foo); // Compiles
util.doStuffWithObjectRef(foo); // Compiles
util.doStuffWithObjectRef(scoped_foo); // Compiles
}
Declarations from namespaces associated with the types of the function arguments both from the instantiation context and from the definition context.
Example with the following code which prints B::foo Demo
namespace A
{
template <typename T>
void foo(const T&) {std::cout << "A::foo" << std::endl;}
template <typename T>
void bar(const T& t) {
foo(t); // thank to ADL, it will also look at B::foo for B::S.
}
}
namespace B
{
struct S {};
void foo(const S&) {std::cout << "B::foo" << std::endl;}
}
int main()
{
B::S s;
A::bar(s);
}
So when calling ?::foo(const B::S&), the second bullet point adds B::foo to the list of overloads.
why template-specialization works in this case
There is only one function:
template<>
void DoStuffUtilNamespace::doStuff<MyClassThatCanDoStuff>(MyClassThatCanDoStuff& foo);
even if it is defined later.
Note that the fact that there is a specialization should be known in the translation unit, else the program is ill formed (doesn't respect ODR).
while overloading doesn't.
You think:
So I think that explains why util.doStuffWithObjectRef(foo); triggers the static assertion: doStuff(MyClassThatCanDoStuff&) hasn't been declared at the point of definition of UtilForDoingStuff::doStuffWithObjectRef<UNKNOWN>(UNKNOWN&). And indeed moving the class UtilForDoingStuff definition after the doStuff overload has been defined seems to fix the issue.
Exactly.
Consider the following code:
#include <iostream>
template<typename T>
void f(T t)
{
(void)t;
std::cout << "templated f(T)\n";
}
template<typename T>
void entry(T t)
{
f(t);
}
void f(double d)
{
(void)d;
std::cout << "normal f(double)\n";
}
int main()
{
double d = 0.0;
entry(d);
return 0;
}
Output:
templated f(T)
I find this surprising, because I thought that the plain function will be selected over any templated version. Why does this happen?
Another thing I noticed while playing around is that: if I put the normal function void f(double) before the templated void entry(T) function the code will call the normal function, basically outputting:
normal f(double)
Therefore my other question: why does the order matter in this particular example?
f is a dependent name, since it depends on t whose type is a template parameter. The name lookup rules for dependent names are given in [temp.dep.res]/1:
In resolving dependent names, names from the following sources are considered:
Declarations that are visible at the point of definition of the template.
Declarations from namespaces associated with the types of the function arguments both from the
instantiation context (14.6.4.1) and from the definition context.
In other words, normally name lookup inside a template only finds names that have been declared before the template definition (which is not that surprising, since it's the same as for non-templates). The second bullet point allows names declared after the template definition to be found, but only when ADL occurs. This won't be the case when the argument is a fundamental type such as double.
The overload for f(double) is not visible to the compiler when the entry(T) template is parsed. Therefore, it won't participate in overload resolution when the entry(T) template is instantiated. This is just an obscure rule when it comes to resolving overloads in a template instantiation context. In order for an overload to be considered, it has to already have been visible in the translation unit before the template definition was parsed.
I'm wondering why the following code compiles.
#include <iostream>
template<class T>
void print(T t) {
std::cout << t;
}
namespace ns {
struct A {};
}
std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& out, ns::A) {
return out << "hi!";
}
int main() {
print(ns::A{});
}
I was under impression that at the instantiation point unqualified dependent names are looked-up via ADL only - which should not consider the global namespace. Am I wrong?
This is an interesting case. The workings of name lookup as you describe them is summarized here:
[temp.dep.candidate] (emphasis mine)
1 For a function call where the postfix-expression is a dependent
name, the candidate functions are found using the usual lookup rules
([basic.lookup.unqual], [basic.lookup.argdep]) except that:
For the part of the lookup using unqualified name lookup, only function declarations from the template definition context are found.
For the part of the lookup using associated namespaces ([basic.lookup.argdep]), only function declarations found in either
the template definition context or the template instantiation context
are found.
If the call would be ill-formed or would find a better match had the
lookup within the associated namespaces considered all the function
declarations with external linkage introduced in those namespaces in
all translation units, not just considering those declarations found
in the template definition and template instantiation contexts, then
the program has undefined behavior.
The bit I highlighted is the crux of the matter. The description for "ADL only" is for function calls of the from foo(bar)! It does not mention calls that result from an overloaded operator. We know that calling overloaded operators is equivalent to calling a function, but the paragraph speaks of expressions in a specific form, that of a function call only.
If one was to change your function template into
template<class T>
void print(T t) {
return operator<< (std::cout, t);
}
where now a function is called via postfix-expression notation, then wo and behold: GCC emits an equivalent error to Clang. It implements the above paragraph reliably, just not when it comes to overloaded operator calls.
So is it a bug? I would say it is. The intent is surely that overloaded operators be found like named functions (even when called from their respective expression form). So GCC needs to be fixed. But the standard could use a minor clarification of the wording too.