within their namespace, and such a redeclaration isn't required to be a
definition any more.
Update DR status page to say Clang 3.4 instead of SVN and add new Clang 3.5
category (but keep Clang 3.4 yellow for now).
llvm-svn: 196481
We would fail to instantiate them when the surrounding function was
instantiated. Instantiate the class and add it's members to the list of
pending instantiations, they should be resolved when we are finished
with the function's body.
This fixes PR9685.
llvm-svn: 195827
code for handling triviality, deletedness and constexpr. Fix a few bugs in
these, particularly related to mutable members, and remove some dead code.
llvm-svn: 195809
data member definitions when the variable has an initializer
in its declaration.
For the following code:
struct S {
static const int x = 42;
};
const int S::x = 42;
This patch changes the diagnostic from:
a.cc:4:14: error: redefinition of 'x'
const int S::x = 42;
^
a.cc:2:20: note: previous definition is here
static const int x = 42;
^
to:
a.cc:4:18: error: static data member 'x' already has an initializer
const int S::x = 42;
^
a.cc:2:24: note: previous initialization is here
static const int x = 42;
^
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2235
llvm-svn: 195306
Line 559: 'long long' is a C++11 extension
Line 566: 'long long' is a C++11 extension
Line 674: 'long long' is a C++11 extension
See also PR13819.
llvm-svn: 195005
template, that member has a dependent type (even if we can see the definition
of the member of the primary template), because the array size could change in
a member specialization.
Patch by Karthik Bhat!
llvm-svn: 194740
bit fields of zero size. Warnings are generated in C++ mode and if
only such type is defined inside extern "C" block.
The patch fixed PR5065.
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2151
llvm-svn: 194653
For i686 targets and LLP64 targets, we can see;
error: 'error' diagnostics seen but not expected:
File clang/test/CXX/drs/dr1xx.cpp Line 761: 'check7a' declared as an array with a negative size
File clang/test/CXX/drs/dr1xx.cpp Line 765: 'check8a' declared as an array with a negative size
2 errors generated.
llvm-svn: 194246
Both Richard and I felt that the current wording in the working paper needed some tweaking - Please see http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2035 for additional context and references to core-reflector messages that discuss wording tweaks.
What is implemented is what we had intended to specify in Bristol; but, recently felt that the specification might benefit from some tweaking and fleshing.
As a rough attempt to explain the semantics: If a nested lambda with a default-capture names a variable within its body, and if the enclosing full expression that contains the name of that variable is instantiation-dependent - then an enclosing lambda that is capture-ready (i.e. within a non-dependent context) must capture that variable, if all intervening nested lambdas can potentially capture that variable if they need to, and all intervening parent lambdas of the capture-ready lambda can and do capture the variable.
Of note, 'this' capturing is also currently underspecified in the working paper for generic lambdas. What is implemented here is if the set of candidate functions in a nested generic lambda includes both static and non-static member functions (regardless of viability checking - i.e. num and type of parameters/arguments) - and if all intervening nested-inner lambdas between the capture-ready lambda and the function-call containing nested lambda can capture 'this' and if all enclosing lambdas of the capture-ready lambda can capture 'this', then 'this' is speculatively captured by that capture-ready lambda.
Hopefully a paper for the C++ committee (that Richard and I had started some preliminary work on) is forthcoming.
This essentially makes generic lambdas feature complete, except for known bugs. The more prominent ones (and the ones I am currently aware of) being:
- generic lambdas and init-captures are broken - but a patch that fixes this is already in the works ...
- nested variadic expansions such as:
auto K = [](auto ... OuterArgs) {
vp([=](auto ... Is) {
decltype(OuterArgs) OA = OuterArgs;
return 0;
}(5)...);
return 0;
};
auto M = K('a', ' ', 1, " -- ", 3.14);
currently cause crashes. I think I know how to fix this (since I had done so in my initial implementation) - but it will probably take some work and back & forth with Doug and Richard.
A warm thanks to all who provided feedback - and especially to Doug Gregor and Richard Smith for their pivotal guidance: their insight and prestidigitation in such matters is boundless!
Now let's hope this commit doesn't upset the buildbot gods ;)
Thanks!
llvm-svn: 194188
the same virtual base class multiple times (and the move assignment is used,
and the move assignment for the virtual base is not trivial).
llvm-svn: 193977
would be deleted are still declared, but are ignored by overload resolution.
Also, don't delete such members if a subobject has no corresponding move
operation and a non-trivial copy. This causes us to implicitly declare move
operations in more cases, but risks move-assigning virtual bases multiple
times in some circumstances (a warning for that is to follow).
llvm-svn: 193969
A previous attempt http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20130930/090049.html resulted in PR 17476, and was reverted,
The original TransformLambdaExpr (pre generic-lambdas) transformed the TypeSourceInfo of the Call operator in its own instantiation scope via TransformType. This resulted in the parameters of the call operator being mapped to their transformed counterparts in an instantiation scope that would get popped off.
Then a call to TransformFunctionParameters would add the parameters and their transformed mappings (but newly created ones!) to the current instantiation scope. This would result in a disconnect between the new call operator's TSI parameters and those used to construct the call operator declaration. This was ok in the non-generic lambda world - but would cause issues with nested transformations (when non-generic and generics were interleaved) in the generic lambda world - that I somewhat kludged around initially - but this resulted in PR17476.
The new approach seems cleaner. We only do the transformation of the TypeSourceInfo - but we make sure to do it in the current instantiation scope so we don't lose the untransformed to transformed mappings of the ParmVarDecls when they get created.
Another attempt caused a test to fail (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20131021/091533.html) and also had to be reverted - my apologies - in my haste, i did not run all the tests - argh!
Now all the tests seem to pass - but a Fixme has been added - since I suspect Richard will find the fix a little inelegant ;) I shall try and work on a more elegant fix once I have had a chance to discuss with Richard or Doug at a later date.
Hopefully the third time;s a charm *fingers crossed*
This does not yet include capturing.
Please see test file for examples.
This patch was LGTM'd by Doug:
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1784
llvm-svn: 193230
They were causing CodeGenCXX/mangle-exprs.cpp to fail.
Revert "Remove the circular reference to LambdaExpr in CXXRecordDecl."
Revert "Again: Teach TreeTransform and family how to transform generic lambdas nested within templates and themselves."
llvm-svn: 193226
lambdas nested within templates and themselves.
A previous attempt http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20130930/090049.html resulted in PR 17476, and was reverted,
The original TransformLambdaExpr (pre generic-lambdas) transformed the TypeSourceInfo of the Call operator in its own instantiation scope via TransformType. This resulted in the parameters of the call operator being mapped to their transformed counterparts in an instantiation scope that would get popped off.
Then a call to TransformFunctionParameters would add the parameters and their transformed mappings (but newly created ones!) to the current instantiation scope. This would result in a disconnect between the new call operator's TSI parameters and those used to construct the call operator declaration. This was ok in the non-generic lambda world - but would cause issues with nested transformations (when non-generic and generics were interleaved) in the generic lambda world - that I somewhat kludged around initially - but this resulted in PR17476.
The new approach seems cleaner. We only do the transformation of the TypeSourceInfo - but we make sure to do it in the current instantiation scope so we don't lose the untransformed to transformed mappings of the ParmVarDecls when they get created.
This does not yet include capturing.
Please see test file for examples.
This patch was LGTM'd by Doug:
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1784
llvm-svn: 193216
Summary:
Enforce the rule in C++11 [temp.mem]p2 that local classes cannot have
member templates.
This fixes PR16947.
N.B. C++14 has slightly different wording to afford generic lambdas
declared inside of functions.
Fun fact: Some formulations of local classes with member templates
would cause clang to crash during Itanium mangling, such as the
following:
void outer_mem() {
struct Inner {
template <typename = void>
struct InnerTemplateClass {
static void itc_mem() {}
};
};
Inner::InnerTemplateClass<>::itc_mem();
}
Reviewers: eli.friedman, rsmith, doug.gregor, faisalv
Reviewed By: doug.gregor
CC: cfe-commits, ygao
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1866
llvm-svn: 193144
Now that CorrectTypo knows how to correctly search classes for typo
correction candidates, there is no good reason to only replace an
existing CXXScopeSpecifier if it refers to a namespace. While the actual
enablement was a matter of changing a single comparison, the fallout
from enabling the functionality required a lot more code changes
(including my two previous commits).
llvm-svn: 193020
that looks like a function declaration, except that it's missing a return type,
try typo-correcting it to the relevant constructor name.
In passing, fix a bug where the missing-type-specifier recovery codepath would
drop a preceding scope specifier on the floor, leading to follow-on diagnostics
and incorrect recovery for the auto-in-c++98 hack.
llvm-svn: 192644
An invalid decltype expression like 'decltype int' gives:
error: expected '(' after 'decltype'
This makes it so 'sizeof int' gives a similar one:
error: expected parentheses around type name in sizeof expression
llvm-svn: 192258
extension. The GCC folks have decided to support this even though the standard
committee have not yet approved this feature.
Patch by Hristo Venev!
llvm-svn: 192128
This does not yet include capturing (that is next).
Please see test file for examples.
This patch was LGTM'd by Doug:
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1784http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20130930/090048.html
When I first committed this patch - a bunch of buildbots were unable to compile the code that VS2010 seemed to compile. Seems like there was a dependency on Sema/Template.h which VS did not seem to need, but I have now added for the other compilers. It still compiles on Visual Studio 2010 - lets hope the buildbots remain quiet (please!)
llvm-svn: 191879
This does not yet include capturing (that is next).
Please see test file for examples.
This patch was LGTM'd by Doug:
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1784
llvm-svn: 191875
The general strategy is to create template versions of the conversion function and static invoker and then during template argument deduction of the conversion function, create the corresponding call-operator and static invoker specializations, and when the conversion function is marked referenced generate the body of the conversion function using the corresponding static-invoker specialization. Similarly, Codegen does something similar - when asked to emit the IR for a specialized static invoker of a generic lambda, it forwards emission to the corresponding call operator.
This patch has been reviewed in person both by Doug and Richard. Richard gave me the LGTM.
A few minor changes:
- per Richard's request i added a simple check to gracefully inform that captures (init, explicit or default) have not been added to generic lambdas just yet (instead of the assertion violation).
- I removed a few lines of code that added the call operators instantiated parameters to the currentinstantiationscope. Not only did it not handle parameter packs, but it is more relevant in the patch for nested lambdas which will follow this one, and fix that problem more comprehensively.
- Doug had commented that the original implementation strategy of using the TypeSourceInfo of the call operator to create the static-invoker was flawed and allowed const as a member qualifier to creep into the type of the static-invoker. I currently kludge around it - but after my initial discussion with Doug, with a follow up session with Richard, I have added a FIXME so that a more elegant solution that involves the use of TrivialTypeSourceInfo call followed by the correct wiring of the template parameters to the functionprototypeloc is forthcoming.
Thanks!
llvm-svn: 191634
Richard Smith