Instead, we check for one line extern "C" context in linkage computation and
when deciding if a variable is a definition.
This hopefully completes the transition to having "as written" semantics for
hasExternalStorage.
llvm-svn: 180258
statement in constexpr functions. Everything which doesn't require variable
mutation is also allowed as an extension in C++11. 'void' becomes a literal
type to support constexpr functions which return 'void'.
llvm-svn: 180022
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
Add a CXXDefaultInitExpr, analogous to CXXDefaultArgExpr, and use it both in
CXXCtorInitializers and in InitListExprs to represent a default initializer.
There's an additional complication here: because the default initializer can
refer to the initialized object via its 'this' pointer, we need to make sure
that 'this' points to the right thing within the evaluation.
llvm-svn: 179958
For this source:
const int &ref = someStruct.bitfield;
We used to generate this AST:
DeclStmt [...]
`-VarDecl [...] ref 'const int &'
`-MaterializeTemporaryExpr [...] 'const int' lvalue
`-ImplicitCastExpr [...] 'const int' lvalue <NoOp>
`-MemberExpr [...] 'int' lvalue bitfield .bitfield [...]
`-DeclRefExpr [...] 'struct X' lvalue ParmVar [...] 'someStruct' 'struct X'
Notice the lvalue inside the MaterializeTemporaryExpr, which is very
confusing (and caused an assertion to fire in the analyzer - PR15694).
We now generate this:
DeclStmt [...]
`-VarDecl [...] ref 'const int &'
`-MaterializeTemporaryExpr [...] 'const int' lvalue
`-ImplicitCastExpr [...] 'int' <LValueToRValue>
`-MemberExpr [...] 'int' lvalue bitfield .bitfield [...]
`-DeclRefExpr [...] 'struct X' lvalue ParmVar [...] 'someStruct' 'struct X'
Which makes a lot more sense. This allows us to remove code in both
CodeGen and AST that hacked around this special case.
The commit also makes Clang accept this (legal) C++11 code:
int &&ref = std::move(someStruct).bitfield
PR15694 / <rdar://problem/13600396>
llvm-svn: 179250
constructor. This isn't quite perfect (as usual, we don't handle default
arguments correctly yet, and we don't deal with copy/move constructors for
arguments correctly either, but this will be fixed when we implement core issue
1351.
This completes our support for inheriting constructors.
llvm-svn: 179154
We were assuming that any expression used as a converted constant
expression would either not have a folded constant value or would be
an integer, which is not the case for some ill-formed constant
expressions. Because converted constant expressions are only used
where integral values are expected, we can simply treat this as an
error path. If that ever changes, we'll need to widen the interface of
Sema::CheckConvertedConstantExpression() anyway.
llvm-svn: 179068
This fixes a regression I introduced in r178136, where we would not
consider the using directives from the semantic declaration contexts
that aren't represented by the lexical scopes (Scope) when performing
unqualified name lookup. This lead to horribly funny diagnostics like
"no identifier named 'foo'; did you mean 'foo'?".
llvm-svn: 179067
overriding a non-deleted virtual function. The existing check for this doesn't
catch this case, because it fires before we mark the method as deleted.
llvm-svn: 178563
visible. There's a lot of potential badness in how we're modelling
these things, but getting this much correct is reasonably easy.
rdar://13535367
llvm-svn: 178488
the normal attribute-merging path, because we can't merge alignment attributes
without knowing the complete set of alignment attributes which apply to a
particular declaration.
llvm-svn: 175861
accessible in its declaring class; otherwise we might
fail to apply [class.protected] when considering
accessibility in derived classes.
Noticed by inspection; <rdar://13270329>.
I had an existing test wrong. Here's why it's wrong:
Follow the rules (and notation) of [class.access]p5.
The naming class (N) is B and the context (R) is D::getX.
- 'x' as a member of B is protected, but R does not occur
in a member or friend of a class derived from B.
- There does exist a base class of B, A, which is accessible
from R, and 'x' is accessible at R when named in A because
'x' as a member of A is protected and R occurs in a member
of a class, D, that is derived from A; however, by
[class.protected], the class of the object expression must
be equal to or derived from that class, and A does not
derive from D.
llvm-svn: 175858
MSVC accepts this:
class A {
A::A();
};
Clang accepts regular member functions with extra qualification as an MS
extension, but not constructors. This changes the parser to defer rejecting
qualified constructors so that the same Sema logic can apply to constructors as
regular member functions. This also improves the error message when MS
extensions are disabled (in my opinion). Before it was:
/Users/jason/Desktop/test.cpp:2:8: error: expected member name or ';' after declaration specifiers
A::A();
~~~~ ^
1 error generated.
After:
/Users/jason/Desktop/test.cpp:2:6: error: extra qualification on member 'A'
A::A();
~~~^
1 error generated.
Patch by Jason Haslam.
llvm-svn: 174980
have a direct mismatch between some component of the template and some
component of the argument. The diagnostic now says what the mismatch was, but
doesn't yet say which part of the template doesn't match.
llvm-svn: 174039