destination type for initialization, assignment, parameter-passing,
etc. The main issue fixed here is that we used rather confusing
wording for diagnostics such as
t.c:2:9: warning: initializing 'char const [2]' discards qualifiers,
expected 'char *' [-pedantic]
char *name = __func__;
^ ~~~~~~~~
We're not initializing a 'char const [2]', we're initializing a 'char
*' with an expression of type 'char const [2]'. Similar problems
existed for other diagnostics in this area, so I've normalized them all
with more precise descriptive text to say what we're
initializing/converting/assigning/etc. from and to. The warning for
the code above is now:
t.c:2:9: warning: initializing 'char *' from an expression of type
'char const [2]' discards qualifiers [-pedantic]
char *name = __func__;
^ ~~~~~~~~
Fixes <rdar://problem/7447179>.
llvm-svn: 100832
therefore not creating ElaboratedTypes, which are still pretty-printed
with the written tag).
Most of these testcase changes were done by script, so don't feel too
sorry for my fingers.
llvm-svn: 98149
(necessarily simultaneous) changes:
- CXXBaseOrMemberInitializer now contains only a single initializer
rather than a set of initialiation arguments + a constructor. The
single initializer covers all aspects of initialization, including
constructor calls as necessary but also cleanup of temporaries
created by the initializer (which we never handled
before!).
- Rework + simplify code generation for CXXBaseOrMemberInitializers,
since we can now just emit the initializer as an initializer.
- Switched base and member initialization over to the new
initialization code (InitializationSequence), so that it
- Improved diagnostics for the new initialization code when
initializing bases and members, to match the diagnostics produced
by the previous (special-purpose) code.
- Simplify the representation of type-checked constructor initializers in
templates; instead of keeping the fully-type-checked AST, which is
rather hard to undo at template instantiation time, throw away the
type-checked AST and store the raw expressions in the AST. This
simplifies instantiation, but loses a little but of information in
the AST.
- When type-checking implicit base or member initializers within a
dependent context, don't add the generated initializers into the
AST, because they'll look like they were explicit.
- Record in CXXConstructExpr when the constructor call is to
initialize a base class, so that CodeGen does not have to infer it
from context. This ensures that we call the right kind of
constructor.
There are also a few "opportunity" fixes here that were needed to not
regress, for example:
- Diagnose default-initialization of a const-qualified class that
does not have a user-declared default constructor. We had this
diagnostic specifically for bases and members, but missed it for
variables. That's fixed now.
- When defining the implicit constructors, destructor, and
copy-assignment operator, set the CurContext to that constructor
when we're defining the body.
llvm-svn: 94952
- 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
overload candidates (but not the built-in ones). We still rely on the
underlying built-in semantic analysis to produce the initial
diagnostic, then print the candidates following that diagnostic.
One side advantage of this approach is that we can perform more validation
of C++'s operator overloading with built-in candidates vs. the
semantic analysis for those built-in operators: when there are no
viable candidates, we know to expect an error from the built-in
operator handling code. Otherwise, we are not modeling the built-in
semantics properly within operator overloading. This is checked as:
assert(Result.isInvalid() &&
"C++ binary operator overloading is missing
candidates!");
if (Result.isInvalid())
PrintOverloadCandidates(CandidateSet, /*OnlyViable=*/false);
The assert() catches cases where we're wrong in a +Asserts build. The
"if" makes sure that, if this happens in a production clang
(-Asserts), we still build the proper built-in operator and continue
on our merry way. This is effectively what happened before this
change, but we've added the assert() to catch more flies.
llvm-svn: 83175
Douglas Gregor