[dcl.contract.func]/4 Missing IFNDR
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 3/5
- Estimated time
- 1-2 days
- Newbie friendliness
- 55/100
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Activity status
- Active
- Tech stack
- cpp, latex, tex
- Domain
- compilers, documentation
Research direction
The issue points to missing IFNDR (ill-formed, no diagnostic required) clauses in the C++ standard draft. Start by reading the linked sections [dcl.contract.func]/4 and /5 and the IFNDR annex G.6.4. Compare the wording to identify the discrepancy: one IFNDR case about mismatched contract specifiers in first declarations across translation units is documented, but another about non-first declarations may be missing. Verify the draft's structure and propose an edit to the LaTeX source, likely in the relevant .tex files under the 'dcl' or 'ifndr' sections.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Description
[dcl.contract.func]/4 says
A declaration D of a function or function template f that is not a first declaration shall have either no function-contract-specifier-seq or the same function-contract-specifier-seq (see below) as any first declaration F reachable from D.
If D and F are in different translation units, a diagnostic is required only if D is attached to a named module.
If a declaration F₁ is a first declaration of f in one translation unit and a declaration F₂ is a first declaration of f in another translation unit, F₁ and F₂ shall specify the same function-contract-specifier-seq, no diagnostic required ([ifndr:dcl.contract.func.mismatched.contract.specifiers]).
There are two IFNDR cases, one about not-the-first declarations and another is about first declarations.
However, G.6.4 is only about the latter case.
If two different first declarations of a function (which must therefore not be reachable from one another) do not have equivalent function contract specifiers the program is ill-formed, no diagnostic required.
BTW, [dcl.contract.func]/5 has a totally missing IFNDR
... If this condition is not met solely due to the comparison of two lambda-expressions that are contained within P₁ and P₂, no diagnostic is required.
- Dominant language
- TeX
- Stars
- 221
- Forks
- 813
- Avg merge
- 17h 45m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 34
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
More from cplusplus/draft
-
P2-Bug
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 75/100
-
P2-Bug
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 85/100
-
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 85/100
-
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 88/100
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 76/100
Similar issues
-
bug
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 75/100
bradcypert/plum#58 ·
-
flang:fir-hlfir
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 70/100
llvm/llvm-project#225935 ·
-
area:cards hand-tail ready-for-agent
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 65/100
fil-donadoni/tolaria#4446 ·
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 75/100
objectionary/eo#8923 ·
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 75/100