Commit Graph

6 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Richard Smith 6fa28ffd5a Fix "regression" caused by updating our notion of POD to better match the C++11
rules: instead of requiring flexible array members to be POD, require them to
be trivially-destructible. This seems to be the only constraint that actually
matters here (and even then, it's questionable whether this matters).

llvm-svn: 198983
2014-01-11 00:53:35 +00:00
David Majnemer 08cd76006f Sema: Disallow derived classes with virtual bases from having flexible array members
Flexible array members only work out if they are the last field of a
record, however virtual bases would give us many situations where the
flexible array member would overlap with the virtual base fields.

It is unlikely in the extreme that this behavior was intended by the
user so raise a diagnostic instead of accepting.  This is will not
reject conforming code because flexible array members are an extension
in C++ mode.

llvm-svn: 193920
2013-11-02 11:19:13 +00:00
Argyrios Kyrtzidis 7e25a95600 g++ is more permissive regarding flexible arrays.
It will accept flexible array in union and also as the sole element of a struct/class.

Fixes rdar://9065507.

llvm-svn: 127171
2011-03-07 20:04:04 +00:00
Anders Carlsson f849774495 It's OK for classes to have flexible array elements (but not unions).
llvm-svn: 113018
2010-09-03 21:53:49 +00:00
Fariborz Jahanian b0e28471a6 Improve on flexible array diagnostics (PR7029).
llvm-svn: 104739
2010-05-26 20:46:24 +00:00
Fariborz Jahanian 1138ba6693 Fixes misc. flexible array bugs in c++ (PR7029).
llvm-svn: 104733
2010-05-26 20:19:07 +00:00