This fixes PR22492, which is in response to CWG issue #1204.
Per the CWG issue 'contexpr' variables are now allowed in
for range loops.
llvm-svn: 229716
This fixes PR22492, which is in response to CWG issue #1204.
Per the CWG issue 'contexpr' variables are now allowed in
for range loops.
llvm-svn: 229543
"protected scope" is very unhelpful here and actively confuses users. Instead,
simply state the nature of the problem in the diagnostic: we cannot jump from
here to there. The notes explain nicely why not.
llvm-svn: 217293
- 'register' storage class
- dynamic exception specifications
Only the former check is enabled by default for now (the latter might be quite noisy).
llvm-svn: 183881
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
The old error message stating that 'begin' was an undeclared identifier
is replaced with a new message explaining that the error is in the range
expression, along with which of the begin() and end() functions was
problematic if relevant.
Additionally, if the range was a pointer type or defines operator*,
attempt to dereference the range, and offer a FixIt if the modified range
works.
llvm-svn: 162248
This comes up in the begin/end calls of a range-for (see the included test
case). Other suggestions are welcome, though this seems to do the trick without
regressing anything.
llvm-svn: 157553
values and non-type template arguments of integral and enumeration types.
This change causes some legal C++98 code to no longer compile in C++11 mode, by
enforcing the C++11 rule that narrowing integral conversions are not permitted
in the final implicit conversion sequence for the above cases.
llvm-svn: 148439
diagnostic message are compared. If either is a substring of the other, then
no error is given. This gives rise to an unexpected case:
// expect-error{{candidate function has different number of parameters}}
will match the following error messages from Clang:
candidate function has different number of parameters (expected 1 but has 2)
candidate function has different number of parameters
It will also match these other error messages:
candidate function
function has different number of parameters
number of parameters
This patch will change so that the verification string must be a substring of
the diagnostic message before accepting. Also, all the failing tests from this
change have been corrected. Some stats from this cleanup:
87 - removed extra spaces around verification strings
70 - wording updates to diagnostics
40 - extra leading or trailing characters (typos, unmatched parens or quotes)
35 - diagnostic level was included (error:, warning:, or note:)
18 - flag name put in the warning (-Wprotocol)
llvm-svn: 146619
but trivially constructible and destructible variables in C++11 mode. Also
incidentally improve the precision of the wording for jump diagnostics in C++98
mode.
llvm-svn: 142619
We had an extension which allowed const static class members of floating-point type to have in-class initializers, 'as a C++0x extension'. However, C++0x does not allow this. The extension has been kept, and extended to all literal types in C++0x mode (with a fixit to add the 'constexpr' specifier).
llvm-svn: 140801
This makes the code duplication of implicit special member handling even worse,
but the cleanup will have to come later. For now, this works.
Follow-up with tests for explicit defaulting and enabling the __has_feature
flag to come.
llvm-svn: 138821
arithmetic into a couple of common routines. Use these to make the
messages more consistent in the various contexts, especially in terms of
consistently diagnosing binary operators with invalid types on both the
left- and right-hand side. Also, improve the grammar and wording of the
messages some, handling both two pointers and two (different) types.
The wording of function pointer arithmetic diagnostics still strikes me
as poorly phrased, and I worry this makes them slightly more awkward if
more consistent. I'm hoping to fix that with a follow-on patch and test
case that will also make them more helpful when a typedef or template
type parameter makes the type completely opaque.
Suggestions on better wording are very welcome, thanks to Richard Smith
for some initial help on that front.
llvm-svn: 133906
class type (or array thereof), eliminating some redundant checks
(thanks Eli!) and adding some tests where the behavior differs in
C++98/03 vs. C++0x.
llvm-svn: 132218
so that it looks at the initializer of a local variable of class type
(or array thereof) to determine whether it's just an implicit
invocation of the trivial default constructor. Fixes PR10034.
llvm-svn: 132191
LabelDecl and LabelStmt. There is a 1-1 correspondence between the
two, but this simplifies a bunch of code by itself. This is because
labels are the only place where we previously had references to random
other statements, causing grief for AST serialization and other stuff.
This does cause one regression (attr(unused) doesn't silence unused
label warnings) which I'll address next.
This does fix some minor bugs:
1. "The only valid attribute " diagnostic was capitalized.
2. Various diagnostics printed as ''labelname'' instead of 'labelname'
3. This reduces duplication of label checking between functions and blocks.
Review appreciated, particularly for the cindex and template bits.
llvm-svn: 125733
name in the outermost block of a if/else that declares the same name
is ill-formed. Turns out that Clang and MSVC were right about PR6739;
GCC is too lax.
llvm-svn: 99937
Meador Inge