warning to an error. C++ bans it, and both GCC and EDG diagnose it as
an error. Microsoft allows it, so we still warn in Microsoft
mode. Fixes <rdar://problem/11135644>.
llvm-svn: 163831
* s/nonstatic/non-static/ in the diagnostics, since the latter form outvoted
the former by 28-2 in our diagnostics.
* Fix the "use of member in static member function" diagnostic to correctly
detect this situation inside a block or lambda.
* Produce a more specific "invalid use of non-static member" diagnostic for
the case where a nested class member refers to a member of a
lexically-surrounding class.
llvm-svn: 154073
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
We'd also like for "C++11" or "c++11" to be used for the warning
groups, but without removing the old warning flags. Patches welcome;
I've run out of time to work on this today.
llvm-svn: 141801
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
"previous token" location at the end of the class definition. This
eliminates a badly-placed error + Fix-It when the ';' following a
class definition is missing. Fixes <rdar://problem/8066414>.
llvm-svn: 106175
- 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
introduce a Scope for the body of a tag. This reduces the number of
semantic differences between C and C++ structs and unions, and will
help with other features (e.g., anonymous unions) in C. Some important
points:
- Fields are now in the "member" namespace (IDNS_Member), to keep
them separate from tags and ordinary names in C. See the new test
in Sema/member-reference.c for an example of why this matters. In
C++, ordinary and member name lookup will find members in both the
ordinary and member namespace, so the difference between
IDNS_Member and IDNS_Ordinary is erased by Sema::LookupDecl (but
only in C++!).
- We always introduce a Scope and push a DeclContext when we're
defining a tag, in both C and C++. Previously, we had different
actions and different Scope/CurContext behavior for enums, C
structs/unions, and C++ structs/unions/classes. Now, it's one pair
of actions. (Yay!)
There's still some fuzziness in the handling of struct/union/enum
definitions within other struct/union/enum definitions in C. We'll
need to do some more cleanup to eliminate some reliance on CurContext
before we can solve this issue for real. What we want is for something
like this:
struct X {
struct T { int x; } t;
};
to introduce T into translation unit scope (placing it at the
appropriate point in the IdentifierResolver chain, too), but it should
still have struct X as its lexical declaration
context. PushOnScopeChains isn't smart enough to do that yet, though,
so there's a FIXME test in nested-redef.c
llvm-svn: 61940
class C {
static const int number = 50;
static int arr[number];
};
Here's how it worked:
-GetTypeForDeclarator was called from both Sema::ActOnCXXMemberDeclarator and Sema::ActOnDeclarator.
-VariableArrayTypes are not uniqued so two VariableArrayTypes were created with the same DeclRefExpr.
-On exit they both tried to destroy that one DeclRefExpr.
The fix is not to use GetTypeForDeclarator from the Sema::ActOnCXXMemberDeclarator.
llvm-svn: 57313
Douglas Gregor