new InitializationSequence. This fixes some bugs (e.g., PR5808),
changed some diagnostics, and caused more churn than expected. What's
new:
- InitializationSequence now has a "C conversion sequence" category
and step kind, which falls back to
- Changed the diagnostics for returns to always have the result type
of the function first and the type of the expression second.
CheckSingleAssignmentConstraints to peform checking in C.
- Improved ASTs for initialization of return values. The ASTs now
capture all of the temporaries we need to create, but
intentionally do not bind the tempoary that is actually returned,
so that it won't get destroyed twice.
- Make sure to perform an (elidable!) copy of the class object that
is returned from a class.
- Fix copy elision in CodeGen to properly see through the
subexpressions that occur with elidable copies.
- Give "new" its own entity kind; as with return values and thrown
objects, we don't bind the expression so we don't call a
destructor for it.
Note that, with this patch, I've broken returning move-only types in
C++0x. We'll fix it later, when we tackle NRVO.
llvm-svn: 91669
- 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
ValueDecl, because that isn't always the case in ill-formed
code. Diagnose a common mistake (forgetting to provide a template
argument list for a class template, PR5655) and dyn_cast so that we
handle the general problem of referring to a non-value declaration
gracefully.
llvm-svn: 90239
CXXRecordDecl that is used to represent class template
specializations. These are canonical declarations that can refer to
either an actual class template specialization in the code, e.g.,
template<> class vector<bool> { };
or to a template instantiation. However, neither of these features is
actually implemented yet, so really we're just using (and uniqing) the
declarations to make sure that, e.g., A<int> is a different type from
A<float>. Note that we carefully distinguish between what the user
wrote in the source code (e.g., "A<FLOAT>") and the semantic entity it
represents (e.g., "A<float, int>"); the former is in the sugared Type,
the latter is an actual Decl.
llvm-svn: 64716
to a class template. For example, the template-id 'vector<int>' now
has a nice, sugary type in the type system. What we can do now:
- Parse template-ids like 'vector<int>' (where 'vector' names a
class template) and form proper types for them in the type system.
- Parse icky template-ids like 'A<5>' and 'A<(5 > 0)>' properly,
using (sadly) a bool in the parser to tell it whether '>' should
be treated as an operator or not.
This is a baby-step, with major problems and limitations:
- There are currently two ways that we handle template arguments
(whether they are types or expressions). These will be merged, and,
most likely, TemplateArg will disappear.
- We don't have any notion of the declaration of class template
specializations or of template instantiations, so all template-ids
are fancy names for 'int' :)
llvm-svn: 64153
Chris Lattner