[Clang][Sema] Defer instantiation of exception specification until af…

…ter partial ordering when determining primary template (llvm#82417)

Consider the following:
```
struct A {
  static constexpr bool x = true;
};

template<typename T, typename U>
void f(T, U) noexcept(T::y); // #1, error: no member named 'y' in 'A'

template<typename T, typename U>
void f(T, U*) noexcept(T::x); // rust-lang#2

template<>
void f(A, int*) noexcept; // explicit specialization of rust-lang#2
```

We currently instantiate the exception specification of all candidate
function template specializations when deducting template arguments for
an explicit specialization, which results in a error despite `#1` not
being selected by partial ordering as the most specialized template.
According to [except.spec] p13:
> An exception specification is considered to be needed when: 
> - [...]
> - the exception specification is compared to that of another
declaration (e.g., an explicit specialization or an overriding virtual
function);

Assuming that "comparing declarations" means "determining whether the
declarations correspond and declare the same entity" (per [basic.scope.scope] p4 and
[basic.link] p11.1, respectively), the exception specification does _not_ need to be
instantiated until _after_ partial ordering, at which point we determine
whether the implicitly instantiated specialization and the explicit
specialization declare the same entity (the determination of whether two
functions/function templates correspond does not consider the exception
specifications).

This patch defers the instantiation of the exception specification until
a single function template specialization is selected via partial
ordering, matching the behavior of GCC, EDG, and
MSVC: see https://godbolt.org/z/Ebb6GTcWE.

clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst

@@ -281,6 +281,8 @@ Bug Fixes to C++ Support
   a requires-clause lie at the same depth as those of the surrounding lambda. This,
   in turn, results in the wrong template argument substitution during constraint checking.
   (`#78524 <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/78524>`_)
+- Clang no longer instantiates the exception specification of discarded candidate function
+  templates when determining the primary template of an explicit specialization.
 
 Bug Fixes to AST Handling
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

clang/lib/Sema/SemaTemplate.cpp

@@ -9709,6 +9709,40 @@ bool Sema::CheckFunctionTemplateSpecialization(
   // Ignore access information;  it doesn't figure into redeclaration checking.
   FunctionDecl *Specialization = cast<FunctionDecl>(*Result);
 
+  // C++23 [except.spec]p13:
+  //   An exception specification is considered to be needed when:
+  //   - [...]
+  //   - the exception specification is compared to that of another declaration
+  //     (e.g., an explicit specialization or an overriding virtual function);
+  //   - [...]
+  //
+  //  The exception specification of a defaulted function is evaluated as
+  //  described above only when needed; similarly, the noexcept-specifier of a
+  //  specialization of a function template or member function of a class
+  //  template is instantiated only when needed.
+  //
+  // The standard doesn't specify what the "comparison with another declaration"
+  // entails, nor the exact circumstances in which it occurs. Moreover, it does
+  // not state which properties of an explicit specialization must match the
+  // primary template.
+  //
+  // We assume that an explicit specialization must correspond with (per
+  // [basic.scope.scope]p4) and declare the same entity as (per [basic.link]p8)
+  // the declaration produced by substitution into the function template.
+  //
+  // Since the determination whether two function declarations correspond does
+  // not consider exception specification, we only need to instantiate it once
+  // we determine the primary template when comparing types per
+  // [basic.link]p11.1.
+  auto *SpecializationFPT =
+      Specialization->getType()->castAs<FunctionProtoType>();
+  // If the function has a dependent exception specification, resolve it after
+  // we have selected the primary template so we can check whether it matches.
+  if (getLangOpts().CPlusPlus17 &&
+      isUnresolvedExceptionSpec(SpecializationFPT->getExceptionSpecType()) &&
+      !ResolveExceptionSpec(FD->getLocation(), SpecializationFPT))
+    return true;
+
   FunctionTemplateSpecializationInfo *SpecInfo
     = Specialization->getTemplateSpecializationInfo();
   assert(SpecInfo && "Function template specialization info missing?");

clang/lib/Sema/SemaTemplateDeduction.cpp

@@ -4632,11 +4632,9 @@ TemplateDeductionResult Sema::DeduceTemplateArguments(
                                                Info.getLocation()))
     return TemplateDeductionResult::MiscellaneousDeductionFailure;
 
-  // If the function has a dependent exception specification, resolve it now,
-  // so we can check that the exception specification matches.
   auto *SpecializationFPT =
       Specialization->getType()->castAs<FunctionProtoType>();
-  if (getLangOpts().CPlusPlus17 &&
+  if (IsAddressOfFunction && getLangOpts().CPlusPlus17 &&
       isUnresolvedExceptionSpec(SpecializationFPT->getExceptionSpecType()) &&
       !ResolveExceptionSpec(Info.getLocation(), SpecializationFPT))
     return TemplateDeductionResult::MiscellaneousDeductionFailure;
@@ -4662,11 +4660,11 @@ TemplateDeductionResult Sema::DeduceTemplateArguments(
   // specialization with respect to arguments of compatible pointer to function
   // types, template argument deduction fails.
   if (!ArgFunctionType.isNull()) {
-    if (IsAddressOfFunction
-            ? !isSameOrCompatibleFunctionType(
-                  Context.getCanonicalType(SpecializationType),
-                  Context.getCanonicalType(ArgFunctionType))
-            : !Context.hasSameType(SpecializationType, ArgFunctionType)) {
+    if (IsAddressOfFunction ? !isSameOrCompatibleFunctionType(
+                                  Context.getCanonicalType(SpecializationType),
+                                  Context.getCanonicalType(ArgFunctionType))
+                            : !Context.hasSameFunctionTypeIgnoringExceptionSpec(
+                                  SpecializationType, ArgFunctionType)) {
       Info.FirstArg = TemplateArgument(SpecializationType);
       Info.SecondArg = TemplateArgument(ArgFunctionType);
       return TemplateDeductionResult::NonDeducedMismatch;

clang/test/CXX/except/except.spec/p13.cpp

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fexceptions -fcxx-exceptions -fsyntax-only -verify %s
+
+struct A {
+  static constexpr bool x = true;
+};
+
+namespace N0 {
+
+template<typename T, typename U>
+void f(T, U) noexcept(T::y); // #1
+
+template<typename T, typename U> // #2
+void f(T, U*) noexcept(T::x);
+
+// Deduction should succeed for both candidates, and #2 should be selected as the primary template.
+// Only the exception specification of #2 should be instantiated.
+template<>
+void f(A, int*) noexcept;
+
+}
+
+namespace N1 {
+
+template<typename T, typename U>
+void f(T, U) noexcept(T::x); // #1
+
+template<typename T, typename U>
+void f(T, U*) noexcept(T::y); // #2
+// expected-error@-1 {{no member named 'y' in 'A'}}
+
+// Deduction should succeed for both candidates, and #2 should be selected as the primary template.
+// Only the exception specification of #2 should be instantiated.
+template<>
+void f(A, int*) noexcept; // expected-error {{exception specification in declaration does not match previous declaration}}
+                          // expected-note@-1 {{in instantiation of exception specification for 'f<A, int>' requested here}}
+                          // expected-note@-2 {{previous declaration is here}}
+}
+
+namespace N2 {
+
+template<typename T, typename U>
+void f(T, U) noexcept(T::x);
+
+template<typename T, typename U>
+void f(T, U*) noexcept(T::x);
+
+template<typename T, typename U>
+void f(T, U**) noexcept(T::y); // expected-error {{no member named 'y' in 'A'}}
+
+template<typename T, typename U>
+void f(T, U***) noexcept(T::x);
+
+template<>
+void f(A, int*) noexcept; // expected-note {{previous declaration is here}}
+
+template<>
+void f(A, int*); // expected-error {{'f<A, int>' is missing exception specification 'noexcept'}}
+
+template<>
+void f(A, int**) noexcept; // expected-error {{exception specification in declaration does not match previous declaration}}
+                           // expected-note@-1 {{in instantiation of exception specification for 'f<A, int>' requested here}}
+                           // expected-note@-2 {{previous declaration is here}}
+
+// FIXME: Exception specification is currently set to EST_None if instantiation fails.
+template<>
+void f(A, int**);
+
+template<>
+void f(A, int***) noexcept; // expected-note {{previous declaration is here}}
+
+template<>
+void f(A, int***); // expected-error {{'f<A, int>' is missing exception specification 'noexcept'}}
+
+}

clang/test/SemaTemplate/class-template-noexcept.cpp

@@ -2,9 +2,7 @@
 // RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++11 -verify %s
 // RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++17 -verify %s
 // RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++1z -verify %s
-#if __cplusplus >= 201703
-// expected-no-diagnostics
-#endif
+
 class A {
 public:
   static const char X;
@@ -14,19 +12,9 @@ const char A::X = 0;
 template<typename U> void func() noexcept(U::X);
 
 template<class... B, char x>
-#if __cplusplus >= 201703
-void foo(void(B...) noexcept(x)) {} 
-#else
 void foo(void(B...) noexcept(x)) {} // expected-note{{candidate template ignored}}
-#endif
 
 void bar()
 {
-#if __cplusplus >= 201703
-  foo(func<A>);
-#else
   foo(func<A>);	// expected-error{{no matching function for call}}
-#endif	
 }
-
-