within nested-name-specifiers, e.g., for the "apply" in
typename MetaFun::template apply<T1, T2>::type
At present, we can't instantiate these nested-name-specifiers, so our
testing is sketchy.
llvm-svn: 68081
representation handles the various ways in which one can name a
template, including unqualified references ("vector"), qualified
references ("std::vector"), and dependent template names
("MetaFun::template apply").
One immediate effect of this change is that the representation of
nested-name-specifiers in type names for class template
specializations (e.g., std::vector<int>) is more accurate. Rather than
representing std::vector<int> as
std::(vector<int>)
we represent it as
(std::vector)<int>
which more closely follows the C++ grammar.
Additionally, templates are no longer represented as declarations
(DeclPtrTy) in Parse-Sema interactions. Instead, I've introduced a new
OpaquePtr type (TemplateTy) that holds the representation of a
TemplateName. This will simplify the handling of dependent
template-names, once we get there.
llvm-svn: 68074
productions (except the already broken ObjC cases like @class X,Y;) in
the parser that can produce more than one Decl return a DeclGroup instead
of a Decl, etc.
This allows elimination of the Decl::NextDeclarator field, and exposes
various clients that should look at all decls in a group, but which were
only looking at one (such as the dumper, printer, etc). These have been
fixed.
Still TODO:
1) there are some FIXME's in the code about potentially using
DeclGroup for better location info.
2) ParseObjCAtDirectives should return a DeclGroup due to @class etc.
3) I'm not sure what is going on with StmtIterator.cpp, or if it can
be radically simplified now.
4) I put a truly horrible hack in ParseTemplate.cpp.
I plan to bring up #3/4 on the mailing list, but don't plan to tackle
#1/2 in the short term.
llvm-svn: 68002
pointer. Its purpose in life is to be a glorified void*, but which does not
implicitly convert to void* or other OpaquePtr's with a different UID.
Introduce Action::DeclPtrTy which is a typedef for OpaquePtr<0>. Change the
entire parser/sema interface to use DeclPtrTy instead of DeclTy*. This
makes the C++ compiler enforce that these aren't convertible to other opaque
types.
We should also convert ExprTy, StmtTy, TypeTy, AttrTy, BaseTy, etc,
but I don't plan to do that in the short term.
The one outstanding known problem with this patch is that we lose the
bitmangling optimization where ActionResult<DeclPtrTy> doesn't know how to
bitmangle the success bit into the low bit of DeclPtrTy. I will rectify
this with a subsequent patch.
llvm-svn: 67952
instantiation for C++ typename-specifiers such as
typename T::type
The parsing of typename-specifiers is relatively easy thanks to
annotation tokens. When we see the "typename", we parse the
typename-specifier and produce a typename annotation token. There are
only a few places where we need to handle this. We currently parse the
typename-specifier form that terminates in an identifier, but not the
simple-template-id form, e.g.,
typename T::template apply<U, V>
Parsing of nested-name-specifiers has a similar problem, since at this
point we don't have any representation of a class template
specialization whose template-name is unknown.
Semantic analysis is only partially complete, with some support for
template instantiation that works for simple examples.
llvm-svn: 67875
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
qualified name, e.g.,
foo::x
so that we retain the nested-name-specifier as written in the source
code and can reproduce that qualified name when printing the types
back (e.g., in diagnostics). This is PR3493, which won't be complete
until finished the other tasks mentioned near the end of this commit.
The parser's representation of nested-name-specifiers, CXXScopeSpec,
is now a bit fatter, because it needs to contain the scopes that
precede each '::' and keep track of whether the global scoping
operator '::' was at the beginning. For example, we need to keep track
of the leading '::', 'foo', and 'bar' in
::foo::bar::x
The Action's CXXScopeTy * is no longer a DeclContext *. It's now the
opaque version of the new NestedNameSpecifier, which contains a single
component of a nested-name-specifier (either a DeclContext * or a Type
*, bitmangled).
The new sugar type QualifiedNameType composes a sequence of
NestedNameSpecifiers with a representation of the type we're actually
referring to. At present, we only build QualifiedNameType nodes within
Sema::getTypeName. This will be extended to other type-constructing
actions (e.g., ActOnClassTemplateId).
Also on the way: QualifiedDeclRefExprs will also store a sequence of
NestedNameSpecifiers, so that we can print out the property
nested-name-specifier. I expect to also use this for handling
dependent names like Fibonacci<I - 1>::value.
llvm-svn: 67265
For example:
Stack dump:
0. Program arguments: clang t.cpp
1. t.cpp:4:8: current parser token: ';'
2. t.cpp:3:1: parsing struct/union/class body 'x'
Abort
It is weird that the parser is always "underneath" any parse context
actions, but the parser is created first.
llvm-svn: 66148
know how to recover from an error, we can attach a hint to the
diagnostic that states how to modify the code, which can be one of:
- Insert some new code (a text string) at a particular source
location
- Remove the code within a given range
- Replace the code within a given range with some new code (a text
string)
Right now, we use these hints to annotate diagnostic information. For
example, if one uses the '>>' in a template argument in C++98, as in
this code:
template<int I> class B { };
B<1000 >> 2> *b1;
we'll warn that the behavior will change in C++0x. The fix is to
insert parenthese, so we use code insertion annotations to illustrate
where the parentheses go:
test.cpp:10:10: warning: use of right-shift operator ('>>') in template
argument will require parentheses in C++0x
B<1000 >> 2> *b1;
^
( )
Use of these annotations is partially implemented for HTML
diagnostics, but it's not (yet) producing valid HTML, which may be
related to PR2386, so it has been #if 0'd out.
In this future, we could consider hooking this mechanism up to the
rewriter to actually try to fix these problems during compilation (or,
after a compilation whose only errors have fixes). For now, however, I
suggest that we use these code modification hints whenever we can, so
that we get better diagnostics now and will have better coverage when
we find better ways to use this information.
This also fixes PR3410 by placing the complaint about missing tokens
just after the previous token (rather than at the location of the next
token).
llvm-svn: 65570
std::vector<int>::allocator_type
When we parse a template-id that names a type, it will become either a
template-id annotation (which is a parsed representation of a
template-id that has not yet been through semantic analysis) or a
typename annotation (where semantic analysis has resolved the
template-id to an actual type), depending on the context. We only
produce a type in contexts where we know that we only need type
information, e.g., in a type specifier. Otherwise, we create a
template-id annotation that can later be "upgraded" by transforming it
into a typename annotation when the parser needs a type. This occurs,
for example, when we've parsed "std::vector<int>" above and then see
the '::' after it. However, it means that when writing something like
this:
template<> class Outer::Inner<int> { ... };
We have two tokens to represent Outer::Inner<int>: one token for the
nested name specifier Outer::, and one template-id annotation token
for Inner<int>, which will be passed to semantic analysis to define
the class template specialization.
Most of the churn in the template tests in this patch come from an
improvement in our error recovery from ill-formed template-ids.
llvm-svn: 65467
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
This shrinks OwningResult by one pointer. Since it is no longer larger than OwningPtr, merge the two.
This leads to simpler client code and speeds up my benchmark by 2.7%.
For some reason, this exposes a previously hidden bug, causing a regression in SemaCXX/condition.cpp.
llvm-svn: 63867
.def file for each library. This means that adding a diagnostic
to sema doesn't require all the other libraries to be rebuilt.
Patch by Anders Johnsen!
llvm-svn: 63111
special action, inside function prototype scope. This avoids confusion
when we try to inject these parameters into the scope of the function
body before the function itself has been added to the surrounding
scope. Fixes <rdar://problem/6097326>.
llvm-svn: 62849
that is neither a definition nor a forward declaration and where X has
not yet been declared as a tag, introduce a declaration
into the appropriate scope (which is likely *not* to be the current
scope). The rules for the placement of the declaration differ slightly
in C and C++, so we implement both and test the various corner
cases. This implementation isn't 100% correct due to some lingering
issues with the function prototype scope (for a function parameter
list) not being the same scope as the scope of the function
definition. Testcase is FIXME'd; this probably isn't an important issue.
Addresses <rdar://problem/6484805>.
llvm-svn: 62014
verified to be simple type specifiers, so there is no need for it
to call TryAnnotateTypeOrScopeToken.
Make MaybeParseCXXScopeSpecifier reject ::new and ::delete with a
hard error now that it may never be transitively called in a
context where these are legal. This allows me to start
disentangling things more.
llvm-svn: 61659
become useful or correct until we (1) parse template arguments
correctly, (2) have some way to turn template-ids into types,
declarators, etc., and (3) have a real representation of templates.
llvm-svn: 61208
Douglas Gregor