std::initializer_list<T> type. Instead, the list must contain a single element
and the type is deduced from that.
In Clang 3.7, we warned by default on all the cases that would change meaning
due to this change. In Clang 3.8, we will support only the new rules -- per
the request in N3922, this change is applied as a Defect Report against earlier
versions of the C++ standard.
This change is not entirely trivial, because for lambda init-captures we
previously did not track the difference between direct-list-initialization and
copy-list-initialization. The difference was not previously observable, because
the two forms of initialization always did the same thing (the elements of the
initializer list were always copy-initialized regardless of the initialization
style used for the init-capture).
llvm-svn: 252688
And thereby stop asserting.
In ObjC++ modes, we tentatively parse the lambda introducer twice: once
to disambiguate designators, which we also do in C++, and a second time
to disambiguate objc message expressions. During the second tentative
parse, the last cached token will be the annotation token we built in
the first parse. So use getLastLoc() to get the correct end location
for the rebuilt annotation.
llvm-svn: 236246
(or of a lambda init-capture, which is sort-of such a variable). The semantics
of such constructs will change when we implement N3922, so we intend to warn on
this in Clang 3.6 then change the semantics in Clang 3.7.
llvm-svn: 228792
*that* easy...
Try a bit harder to disambiguate. This is mostly straightforward, but for
=-style initializers, we actually need to know where an expression ends:
[foo = bar baz]
is a message send, whereas
[foo = bar + baz]
is a lambda-introducer. Handle this by parsing the expression eagerly, and
replacing it with an annotation token. By chance, we use the *exact same*
parsing rules in both cases (except that we need to assume we're inside a
message send for the parse, to turn off various forms of inapplicable
error recovery).
llvm-svn: 182432
a FieldDecl from it, and propagate both into the closure type and the
LambdaExpr.
You can't do much useful with them yet -- you can't use them within the body
of the lambda, because we don't have a representation for "the this of the
lambda, not the this of the enclosing context". We also don't have support or a
representation for a nested capture of an init-capture yet, which was intended
to work despite not being allowed by the current standard wording.
llvm-svn: 181985
designator" diagnostic with more correct and more human-friendly "cannot take
address of rvalue of type 'T'".
For the case of & &T::f, provide a custom diagnostic, rather than unhelpfully
saying "cannot take address of rvalue of type '<overloaded function type>'".
For the case of &array_temporary, treat it just like a class temporary
(including allowing it as an extension); the existing diagnostic wording
for the class temporary case works fine.
llvm-svn: 174262
Richard Smith