Other compilers accept invalid code here that we reject, and we need a
better error message to try to convince users that the code is really
incorrect. Consider:
class Foo {
typedef MyIterHelper<Foo> iterator;
friend class iterator;
};
Previously our wording was "elaborated type refers to a typedef".
"elaborated type" isn't widely known terminology, so the new diagnostic
says "typedef 'iterator' cannot be referenced with class specifier".
Reviewers: rsmith
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25216
llvm-svn: 289259
Summary:
Once a base class has been made invalid (by a static_assert for example) all using-member declarations in the derived classes will result in a "not a base class" diagnostic. This diagnostic is very misleading and should not be emitted.
This change is needed to help libc++ produce reasonable diagnostics in `std::optional` and `std::variant`.
Reviewers: rsmith, majnemer, aaron.ballman
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25430
llvm-svn: 283755
This is a fix for https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=25561 which was a
crash on invalid. Change the handling of invalid decls to have a catch-all
case to prevent unexpecting decls from triggering an assertion.
llvm-svn: 265467
therefore not creating ElaboratedTypes, which are still pretty-printed
with the written tag).
Most of these testcase changes were done by script, so don't feel too
sorry for my fingers.
llvm-svn: 98149
- This is designed to make it obvious that %clang_cc1 is a "test variable"
which is substituted. It is '%clang_cc1' instead of '%clang -cc1' because it
can be useful to redefine what gets run as 'clang -cc1' (for example, to set
a default target).
llvm-svn: 91446
two classes, one for typenames and one for values; this seems to have some
support from Doug if not necessarily from the extremely-vague-on-this-point
standard. Track the location of the 'typename' keyword in a using-typename
decl. Make a new lookup result for unresolved values and deal with it in
most places.
llvm-svn: 89184