and implicitly defined constructors. This has a number of benefits:
1. Less code.
2. Explicit and implicit constructors get the same diagnostics.
3. The AST explicitly contains constructor calls from implicit default
constructors. This allows handing some cases that previously weren't handled
correctly in IRGen without any additional code. Specifically, implicit default
constructors containing calls to constructors with default arguments are now
handled correctly.
llvm-svn: 86500
class C {
C() { }
int a;
};
C::C() : a(10) { }
We also diagnose when initializers are used on declarations that aren't constructors:
t.cpp:1:10: error: only constructors take base initializers
void f() : a(10) { }
^
Doug and/or Sebastian: I'd appreciate a review, especially the nested-name-spec test results (from the looks of it we now match gcc in that test.)
llvm-svn: 67672
information about types. We often print diagnostics where we say
"foo_t" is bad, but the user doesn't know how foo_t is declared
(because it is a typedef). Fix this by expanding sugar when present
in a diagnostic (and not one of a few special cases, like vectors).
Before:
t.m:5:2: error: invalid operands to binary expression ('typeof(P)' and 'typeof(F)')
MAX(P, F);
^~~~~~~~~
t.m:1:78: note: instantiated from:
#define MAX(A,B) ({ __typeof__(A) __a = (A); __typeof__(B) __b = (B); __a < __b ? __b : __a; })
^
After:
t.m:5:2: error: invalid operands to binary expression ('typeof(P)' (aka 'struct mystruct') and 'typeof(F)' (aka 'float'))
MAX(P, F);
^~~~~~~~~
t.m:1:78: note: instantiated from:
#define MAX(A,B) ({ __typeof__(A) __a = (A); __typeof__(B) __b = (B); __a < __b ? __b : __a; })
^
llvm-svn: 65081
Douglas Gregor