(__m128){ p[0], p[1], p[2], p[3] }
which produces really bad code. This could be done in instcombine, but it's
probably better to do it in the front-end instead.
<rdar://problem/9424836>
llvm-svn: 131237
They are actually grammatically considered definitions and parsed
accordingly.
This fixes the outstanding bugs regarding defaulting functions after
their declarations.
We now really nicely diagnose the following construct (try it!)
int foo() = delete, bar;
Still todo: Defaulted functions other than default constructors
Test cases (including for the above construct)
llvm-svn: 131228
defaulted default constructors.
As it happens, making sure that we handle out-of-line defaulted
functions properly will involved making sure that we actually parse them
correctly, so that's coming after.
llvm-svn: 131224
nested of an out-of-line declaration, only require a 'template<>'
header for each enclosing class template that hasn't been previously
specialized; previously, we were requiring 'template<>' for enclosing
class templates and members of class templates that hadn't been
previously specialized. Fixes <rdar://problem/9422013>.
llvm-svn: 131207
I've edited one diagnostic which would print "copy constructor" for copy
constructors and "constructor" for any other constructor. If anyone is
extremely enamored with this, it can be reinstated with a simple boolean
flag rather than calling getSpecialMember, which is inappropriate.
llvm-svn: 131143
the semantic context referenced by the nested-name-specifier rather
than the syntactic form of the nested-name-specifier. The previous
incarnation was based on my complete misunderstanding of C++
[temp.expl.spec]. The latest C++0x working draft clarifies the
requirements here, and this rewrite is intended to follow that.
Along the way, improve source location information in the
diagnostics. For example, if we report that a specific type needs or
doesn't need a 'template<>' header, we dig out that type in the
nested-name-specifier and highlight its range.
Fixes: PR5907, PR9421, PR8277, PR8708, PR9482, PR9668, PR9877, and
<rdar://problem/9135379>.
llvm-svn: 131138
Focus is on default constructors for the time being. Currently the
exception specification and prototype are processed correctly. Codegen
might work but in all likelihood doesn't.
Note that due to an error, out-of-line defaulting of member functions is
currently impossible. It will continue to that until I muster up the
courage to admit that I secretly pray to epimetheus and that I need to
rework the way default gets from Parse -> Sema.
llvm-svn: 131115
hasTrivialDefaultConstructor() really really means it now.
Also implement a fun standards bug regarding aggregates. Doug, if you'd
like, I can un-implement that bug if you think it is truly a defect.
The bug is that non-special-member constructors are never considered
user-provided, so the following is an aggregate:
struct foo {
foo(int);
};
It's kind of bad, but the solution isn't obvious - should
struct foo {
foo (int) = delete;
};
be an aggregate or not?
Lastly, add a missing initialization to FunctionDecl.
llvm-svn: 131101
also consider whether any of the parameter types (as written, prior to
decay) are dependent. Fixes PR9880 and <rdar://problem/9408413>.
llvm-svn: 131099
bit by allowing __weak and __strong to be added/dropped as part of
implicit conversions (qualification conversions in C++). A little
history: GCC lets one add/remove/change GC qualifiers just about
anywhere, implicitly. Clang did roughly the same before, but we
recently normalized the semantics of qualifiers across the board to
get a semantics that we could reason about (yay). Unfortunately, this
tightened the screws a bit too much for GC qualifiers, where it's
common to add/remove these qualifiers at will.
Overall, we're still in better shape than we were before: we don't
permit directly changing the GC qualifier (e.g., __weak -> __strong),
so type safety is improved. More importantly, we're internally
consistent in our handling of qualifiers, and the logic that allows
adding/removing GC qualifiers (but not adding/removing address
spaces!) only touches two obvious places.
Fixes <rdar://problem/9402499>.
llvm-svn: 131065
Bill Wendling