Arguments and return values must always be marshalled as for the base
AAPCS when the callee is a variadic function.
Patch by Oliver Stannard!
llvm-svn: 200307
case when correcting for too many arguments (r191450 had only fixed the
problem for when there were too few arguments). Also fix the underlining
for both cases.
llvm-svn: 200268
PR18322. This test will be reenabled when the SDK gets fixed. In the meantime,
it is pretty disruptive to have this test keep failing.
llvm-svn: 200256
This reverts commit r200233.
The test required a registered ARM target, it was testing LLVM's
generated assembly, and it should have been an IRGen test.
llvm-svn: 200242
parimary class and in mrr mode, assume property's default
memory attribute (assign) and to prevent a bogus warning.
// rdar://15859862
llvm-svn: 200238
e.g. thumbv7m-apple-ios3.0.0-eabi, then it should mean it's an iOS target. For
embedded targets, the OS should be unknown, e.g. thumbv7m-apple-unknown-macho.
Since Tim has recently fixed the triple, r195149 is no longer needed.
rdar://15911035
llvm-svn: 200164
This starts to switch ARCMT to use proper diagnostic messages. The old use was
based on incorrect example code from the documentation.
The logic of the previous report() functions has been retained to support any
external consumers that might be intercepting diagnostic messages through the
old interface.
Note that the change in test/Misc/warning-flags.c isn't a new warning without a
flag, rather one that was previously invisible to the test. Adding a flag might
be a good idea though.
llvm-svn: 200124
initialized from a constant expression in C++98, it can be used in
constant expressions, even if it was brace-initialized. Patch by
Rahul Jain!
llvm-svn: 200098
Previously, string literals were ignored in all logical expressions. This
reduces it to only ignore in logical and expressions.
assert(0 && "error"); // No warning
assert(0 || "error"); // Warn
Fixes PR17565
llvm-svn: 200056
allow this, and we should warn on it, but it turns out that people were already
relying on this.
We should introduce a -Wgcc-compat warning for this if the attributes are known
to GCC, but we don't currently track enough information about attributes to do
so reliably.
llvm-svn: 200045
might have a smaller size as compared to the stand-alone type of the base class.
This is possible when the derived class is packed and hence might have smaller
alignment requirement than the base class.
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2599
llvm-svn: 200031
override for the type of 'this', also clear it out (unless we're entering the
context of a lambda-expression, where it should be inherited).
llvm-svn: 199962
member-declaration. In the process, fix a couple of bugs that had crept in
where we would parse the first and subsequent member-declarators differently
(in particular, we didn't accept an asm-label on a member function definition
within a class, and we would accept virt-specifiers and attributes in the wrong
order on the first declarator but not on subsequent ones).
llvm-svn: 199957
Due to statement expressions supported as GCC extension, it is possible
to put 'break' or 'continue' into a loop/switch statement but outside
its body, for example:
for ( ; ({ if (first) { first = 0; continue; } 0; }); )
This code is rejected by GCC if compiled in C mode but is accepted in C++
code. GCC bug 44715 tracks this discrepancy. Clang used code generation
that differs from GCC in both modes: only statement of the third
expression of 'for' behaves as if it was inside loop body.
This change makes code generation more close to GCC, considering 'break'
or 'continue' statement in condition and increment expressions of a
loop as it was inside the loop body. It also adds error for the cases
when 'break'/'continue' appear outside loop due to this syntax. If
code generation differ from GCC, warning is issued.
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2518
llvm-svn: 199897
This is a simpler rule, broadly in line with previous Darwin (which chose
between "soft" and "softfp") but probably safer. In practice the only real
reason for "softfp" is ABI compatibility, not usually an issue on limited chips
like these, so anyone who wanted hard-float should already be saying so.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
rdar://problem/15887493
llvm-svn: 199896
Some ABIs have different return types for constructors and
destructors, and we're just looking for the end of the function
here. Loosen up the regex.
llvm-svn: 199870
If there are non-trivially-copyable types /other/ than C++ records, we
won't have a synthesized copy expression, but we can't just use a simple
load/return.
Also, add comments and shore up tests, making sure to test in both ARC
and non-ARC.
llvm-svn: 199869
Fariborz Jahanian