- Several important FIXMEs related to whether arguments are expressions or external names, and the mangling of extern "C" names (c.f., PR5522).
llvm-svn: 89556
- Sometimes we have to mangle things we wouldn't normally (e.g., because they appear in a template expression).
- This also tidies up the predicate to be more obvious what is getting mangled.
llvm-svn: 89555
into pretty much everything about overload resolution in order to wean
BuildDeclarationNameExpr off LookupResult::getAsSingleDecl(). Replace
UnresolvedFunctionNameExpr with UnresolvedLookupExpr, which generalizes the
idea of a non-member lookup that we haven't totally resolved yet, whether by
overloading, argument-dependent lookup, or (eventually) the presence of
a function template in the lookup results.
Incidentally fixes a problem with argument-dependent lookup where we were
still performing ADL even when the lookup results contained something from
a block scope.
Incidentally improves a diagnostic when using an ObjC ivar from a class method.
This just fell out from rewriting BuildDeclarationNameExpr's interaction with
lookup, and I'm too apathetic to break it out.
The only remaining uses of OverloadedFunctionDecl that I know of are in
TemplateName and MemberExpr.
llvm-svn: 89544
The following attributes are currently supported in C++0x attribute
lists (and in GNU ones as well):
- align() - semantics believed to be conformant to n3000, except for
redeclarations and what entities it may apply to
- final - semantics believed to be conformant to CWG issue 817's proposed
wording, except for redeclarations
- noreturn - semantics believed to be conformant to n3000, except for
redeclarations
- carries_dependency - currently ignored (this is an optimization hint)
llvm-svn: 89543
name 'T' is looked up in the expression
t.~T()
Previously, we weren't looking into the type of "t", and therefore
would fail when T actually referred to an injected-class-name. Fixes
PR5530.
llvm-svn: 89493
than tweaking existing ASTs, since we were (*gasp*) stomping on ASTs
within templates. I'm glad we found this little stick of TNT early...
llvm-svn: 89475
A::f
that occurs within a non-static member function with a type-dependent
"this", don't consider this to be a case for introduction of an
implicit "(*this)." to refer to a specific member function unless we
know (at template definition time) that A is a base class of *this.
There is some disagreement here between GCC, EDG, and Clang about the
handling of this case. I believe that Clang now has the correct,
literal interpretation of the standard, but have asked for
clarification (c++std-core-15483).
llvm-svn: 89425
Daniel Dunbar