Correct class-template deprecation behavior
Based on the comment in the test, and my reading of the standard, a deprecated warning should be issued in the following case:
template<typename T> [[deprecated]] class Foo{}; Foo<int> f;
This was not the case, because the ClassTemplateSpecializationDecl creation did not also copy the deprecated attribute.
Note: I did NOT audit the complete set of attributes to see WHICH ones should be copied, so instead I simply copy ONLY the deprecated attribute.
Previous DiffRev: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27486, was reverted.
This patch fixes the issues brought up here by the reverter: https://reviews.llvm.org/rL298410
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31245
llvm-svn: 298634
Based on the comment in the test, and my reading of the standard, a deprecated warning should be issued in the following case:
template<typename T> [[deprecated]] class Foo{}; Foo<int> f;
This was not the case, because the ClassTemplateSpecializationDecl creation did not also copy the deprecated attribute.
Note: I did NOT audit the complete set of attributes to see WHICH ones should be copied, so instead I simply copy ONLY the deprecated attribute.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27486
llvm-svn: 298410
This is long-since overdue, and matches GCC 5.0. This should also be
backwards-compatible, because we already supported all of C11 as an extension
in C99 mode.
llvm-svn: 220244
Fixes <rdar://problem/15584219> and <rdar://problem/12241361>.
This change looks large, but all it does is reuse and consolidate
the delayed diagnostic logic for deprecation warnings with unavailability
warnings. By doing so, it showed various inconsistencies between the
diagnostics, which were close, but not consistent. It also revealed
some missing "note:"'s in the deprecated diagnostics that were showing
up in the unavailable diagnostics, etc.
This change also changes the wording of the core deprecation diagnostics.
Instead of saying "function has been explicitly marked deprecated"
we now saw "'X' has been been explicitly marked deprecated". It
turns out providing a bit more context is useful, and often we
got the actual term wrong or it was not very precise
(e.g., "function" instead of "destructor"). By just saying the name
of the thing that is deprecated/deleted/unavailable we define
this issue away. This diagnostic can likely be further wordsmithed
to be shorter.
llvm-svn: 197627
Not completely sure this is right, but it's clearly better than what
we did before this commit (effectively dropping the attribute).
<rdar://problem/14413117>
llvm-svn: 186373
unknown attributes that we discard. Add a diagnostic group for unknown
attribute warnings to allow turning these off when we don't care. Also
consolidates the tests for this case.
llvm-svn: 107864
- 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
appears in a deprecated context. In the new strategy, we emit the warnings
as usual unless we're currently parsing a declaration, where "declaration" is
restricted to mean a decl group or a few special cases in Objective C. If
we *are* parsing a declaration, we queue up the deprecation warnings until
the declaration has been completely parsed, and then emit them only if the
decl is not deprecated.
We also standardize the bookkeeping for deprecation so as to avoid special cases.
llvm-svn: 85998
process decl attributes instead of dropping them on the floor.
This allows us to diagnose cases like the testcase. Also don't
diagnose deprecated stuff in ActOnTag: not all uses of tags
may be 'uses', and SemaType does this now.
llvm-svn: 85071
Erik Pilkington