When a '>>' token is split into two '>' tokens (in C++11 onwards), or (as an
extension) when we do the same for other tokens starting with a '>', we can't
just use a location pointing to the first '>' as the location of the split
token, because that would result in our miscomputing the length and spelling
for the token. As a consequence, for example, a refactoring replacing 'A<X>'
with something else would sometimes replace one character too many, and
similarly diagnostics highlighting a template-id source range would highlight
one character too many.
Fix this by creating an expansion range covering the first character of the
'>>' token, whose spelling is '>'. For this to work, we generalize the
expansion range of a macro FileID to be either a token range (the common case)
or a character range (used in this new case).
llvm-svn: 331155
We were incorrectly setting PrevTokLocation to the first token in the
annotation token instead of the last when consuming it. To fix this without
adding a complex switch to the hot path through ConsumeToken, we now have a
ConsumeAnnotationToken function for consuming annotation tokens in addition
to the other Consume*Token special case functions.
llvm-svn: 303372
This CL has caused bootstrap failures on Linux and OSX buildbots running with -Werror.
Example report from http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux/builds/13183/steps/bootstrap%20clang/logs/stdio:
================================================================
[ 91%] Building CXX object tools/clang/tools/diagtool/CMakeFiles/diagtool.dir/ShowEnabledWarnings.cpp.o
In file included from /home/dtoolsbot/build/sanitizer-x86_64-linux/build/llvm/lib/Target/R600/AMDGPUISelDAGToDAG.cpp:20:
In file included from /home/dtoolsbot/build/sanitizer-x86_64-linux/build/llvm/lib/Target/R600/SIISelLowering.h:19:
/home/dtoolsbot/build/sanitizer-x86_64-linux/build/llvm/lib/Target/R600/SIInstrInfo.h:71:8: error: 'getLdStBaseRegImmOfs' overrides a member function but is not marked 'override' [-Werror,-Winconsistent-missing-override]
bool getLdStBaseRegImmOfs(MachineInstr *LdSt,
^
/home/dtoolsbot/build/sanitizer-x86_64-linux/build/llvm/include/llvm/Target/TargetInstrInfo.h:815:16: note: overridden virtual function is here
virtual bool getLdStBaseRegImmOfs(MachineInstr *LdSt,
^
================================================================
llvm-svn: 218969
for an overriding method if class has at least one
'override' specified on one of its methods.
Reviewed by Doug Gregor. rdar://18295240
(I have already checked in all llvm files with missing 'override'
methods and Bob Wilson has fixed a TableGen of FastISel so
no warnings are expected from build of llvm after this patch.
I have already verified this).
llvm-svn: 218925
allow this, and we should warn on it, but it turns out that people were already
relying on this.
We should introduce a -Wgcc-compat warning for this if the attributes are known
to GCC, but we don't currently track enough information about attributes to do
so reliably.
llvm-svn: 200045
member-declaration. In the process, fix a couple of bugs that had crept in
where we would parse the first and subsequent member-declarators differently
(in particular, we didn't accept an asm-label on a member function definition
within a class, and we would accept virt-specifiers and attributes in the wrong
order on the first declarator but not on subsequent ones).
llvm-svn: 199957
followed by an identifier, then diagnose an identifier as being a bogus part of
the declarator instead of tripping over it. Improves diagnostics for cases like
std::vector<const int *p> my_vec;
llvm-svn: 186061
C++1y, so stop adding the 'const' there. Provide a compatibility warning for
code relying on this in C++11, with a fix-it hint. Update our lazily-written
tests to add the const, except for those ones which were testing our
implementation of this rule.
llvm-svn: 179969
scope to -Wc++11-extensions. Move extra semicolon after member function
definition diagnostic out of -pedantic, since C++ allows a single semicolon
there. Keep it in -Wextra-semi, though, since it's still questionable.
llvm-svn: 160618
being defined here: [] () -> struct S {} does not define struct S.
In passing, implement DR1318 (syntactic disambiguation of 'final').
llvm-svn: 152551
instead of a semicolon (as sometimes happens during refactorings). When such a
comma is seen at the end of a line, and is followed by something which can't
possibly be a declarator (or even something which might be a plausible typo for
a declarator), suggest that a semicolon was intended.
llvm-svn: 142544
Richard Smith