t.c:3:9: error: expected expression
if (x)) {
^
.. which isn't even true - a statement or expression is fine. After:
t.c:3:9: error: extraneous ')' after condition, expected a statement
if (x)) {
^
This is the second part of PR12595
llvm-svn: 155762
us to improve this diagnostic (telling us to insert another ")":
t.c:2:19: error: expected ';' at end of declaration
int x = 4+(5-12));
^
;
to:
t.c:2:19: error: extraneous ')' before ';'
int x = 4+(5-12));
^
...telling us to remove the ")". This is PR12595. There are more uses of ExpectAndConsumeSemi
that could be switched over, but I don't hit them on a daily basis :)
llvm-svn: 155759
Otherwise we would get this error in C++11 mode (because of a recent change):
error: non-type template argument of type 'const _GUID *' is not a constant expression
For code like:
template <const GUID* g = &__uuidof(struct_with_uuid)>
class COM_CLASS { };
llvm-svn: 154790
attached. Since we do not support any attributes which appertain to a statement
(yet), testing of this is necessarily quite minimal.
Patch by Alexander Kornienko!
llvm-svn: 154723
* Alternative tokens (such as 'compl') are treated as identifiers in
attribute names.
* An attribute-list can start with a comma.
* An ellipsis may not be used with either of our currently-supported
C++11 attributes.
llvm-svn: 154381
* In C++11, '[[' is ill-formed unless it starts an attribute-specifier. Reject
array sizes and array indexes which begin with a lambda-expression. Recover by
parsing the lambda as a lambda.
* In Objective-C++11, either '[' could be the start of a message-send.
Fully disambiguate this case: it turns out that the grammars of message-sends,
lambdas and attributes do not actually overlap. Accept any occurrence of '[['
where either '[' starts a message send, but reject a lambda in an array index
just like in C++11 mode.
Implement a couple of changes to the attribute wording which occurred after our
attributes implementation landed:
* In a function-declaration, the attributes go after the exception specification,
not after the right paren.
* A reference type can have attributes applied.
* An 'identifier' in an attribute can also be a keyword. Support for alternative
tokens (iso646 keywords) in attributes to follow.
And some bug fixes:
* Parse attributes after declarator-ids, even if they are not simple identifiers.
* Do not accept attributes after a parenthesized declarator.
* Accept attributes after an array size in a new-type-id.
* Partially disamiguate 'delete' followed by a lambda. More work is required
here for the case where the lambda-introducer is '[]'.
llvm-svn: 154369
Specifically, using a an integer outside [0, 1] as a boolean constant seems to
be an easy mistake to make with things like "x == a || b" where the author
intended "x == a || x == b".
The bug caused by calling SkipUntil with three token kinds was also identified
by a VC diagnostic & reported by Francois Pichet as review feedback for my
commit r154163. I've included test cases to verify the error recovery that was
broken/poorly implemented due to this bug.
The other fix (lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp) seems like that code was never actually
reached in any of Clang's tests & is related to Objective C features I'm not
familiar with, so I've not been able to construct a test case for it. Perhaps
someone else can.
llvm-svn: 154325
In a few cases clang emitted a rather content-free diagnostic: 'parse error'.
This change replaces two actual cases (template parameter parsing and K&R
parameter declaration parsing) with more specific diagnostics and removes a
third dead case of this in the BalancedDelimiterTracker (the ctor already
checked the invariant necessary to ensure that the diag::parse_error was never
actually used).
llvm-svn: 154224
The warning this inhibits, -Wobjc-root-class, is opt-in for now. However, all clang unit tests that would trigger
the warning have been updated to use -Wno-objc-root-class. <rdar://problem/7446698>
llvm-svn: 154187
Based on Doug's feedback to r153887 this omits the FixIt if the following token
isn't syntactically valid for the context. (not a comma, '...', identifier,
'>', or '>>')
There's a bunch of work to handle the '>>' case, but it makes for a much more
pleasant diagnostic in this case.
llvm-svn: 154163
* s/nonstatic/non-static/ in the diagnostics, since the latter form outvoted
the former by 28-2 in our diagnostics.
* Fix the "use of member in static member function" diagnostic to correctly
detect this situation inside a block or lambda.
* Produce a more specific "invalid use of non-static member" diagnostic for
the case where a nested class member refers to a member of a
lexically-surrounding class.
llvm-svn: 154073
The diagnostic message correctly informs the user that they have omitted the
'class' keyword, but neither suggests this insertion as a fixit, nor attempts
to recover as if they had provided the keyword.
This fixes the recovery, adds the fixit, and adds a separate diagnostic and
corresponding replacement fixit for cases where the user wrote 'struct' or
'typename' instead of 'class' (suggested by Richard Smith as a possible common
mistake).
I'm not sure the diagnostic message for either the original or new cases feel
very Clang-esque, so I'm open to suggestions there. The fixit hints make it
fairly easy to see what's required, though.
llvm-svn: 153887
constructor, but X is not a known typename, check whether the tokens could
possibly match the syntax of a declarator before concluding that it isn't
a constructor. If it's definitely ill-formed, assume it is a constructor.
Empirical evidence suggests that this pattern is much more often a
constructor with a typoed (or not-yet-declared) type name than any of the
other possibilities, so the extra cost of the check is not expected to be
problematic.
llvm-svn: 153488
being defined here: [] () -> struct S {} does not define struct S.
In passing, implement DR1318 (syntactic disambiguation of 'final').
llvm-svn: 152551
defined here, but not semantically, so
new struct S {};
is always ill-formed, even if there is a struct S in scope.
We also had a couple of bugs in ParseOptionalTypeSpecifier caused by it being
under-loved (due to it only being used in a few places) so merge it into
ParseDeclarationSpecifiers with a new DeclSpecContext. To avoid regressing, this
required improving ParseDeclarationSpecifiers' diagnostics in some cases. This
also required teaching ParseSpecifierQualifierList about constexpr... which
incidentally fixes an issue where we'd allow the constexpr specifier in other
bad places.
llvm-svn: 152549
for a few kinds of error. Specifically:
Since we're after translation phase 6, the "" token might be formed by multiple
source-level string literals. Checking the token width is not a correct way of
detecting empty string literals, due to escaped newlines. Diagnose and recover
from a missing space between "" and suffix, and from string literals other than
"", which are followed by a suffix.
llvm-svn: 152348
starting with an underscore is ill-formed.
Since this rule rejects programs that were using <inttypes.h>'s macros, recover
from this error by treating the ud-suffix as a separate preprocessing-token,
with a DefaultError ExtWarn. The approach of treating such cases as two tokens
is under discussion for standardization, but is in any case a conforming
extension and allows existing codebases to keep building while the committee
makes up its mind.
Reword the warning on the definition of literal operators not starting with
underscores (which are, strangely, legal) to more explicitly state that such
operators can't be called by literals. Remove the special-case diagnostic for
hexfloats, since it was both triggering in the wrong cases and incorrect.
llvm-svn: 152287
analysis to make the AST representation testable. They are represented by a
new UserDefinedLiteral AST node, which is a sugared CallExpr. All semantic
properties, including full CodeGen support, are achieved for free by this
representation.
UserDefinedLiterals can never be dependent, so no custom instantiation
behavior is required. They are mangled as if they were direct calls to the
underlying literal operator. This matches g++'s apparent behavior (but not its
actual mangling, which is broken for literal-operator-ids).
User-defined *string* literals are now fully-operational, but the semantic
analysis is quite hacky and needs more work. No other forms of user-defined
literal are created yet, but the AST support for them is present.
This patch committed after midnight because we had already hit the quota for
new kinds of literal yesterday.
llvm-svn: 152211
grammar requires a string-literal and not a user-defined-string-literal. The
two constructs are still represented by the same TokenKind, in order to prevent
a combinatorial explosion of different kinds of token. A flag on Token tracks
whether a ud-suffix is present, in order to prevent clients from needing to look
at the token's spelling.
llvm-svn: 152098
C++11, and with braced-init-list initializers in conditions. This exposed an
ambiguity with enum underlying types versus bitfields, which we resolve by
treating 'enum E : T {' as always defining an enumeration (even if it would
only successfully parse as a bitfield). This appears to be g++ compatible.
llvm-svn: 151227
designators in the parser. In the worst case, this disambiguation
requires tentative parsing just past the closing ']', but for most
cases we'll be able to tell by looking ahead just one token (without
going into the heavyweight tentative parsing machinery).
llvm-svn: 150790
For compatibility with gcc, clang will now parse gcc attributes on
function definitions, but issue a warning if the attribute is not a
thread safety attribute. Warning controlled by -Wgcc-compat.
llvm-svn: 150698
Snooping in other namespaces when the identifier being corrected is
already qualified (i.e. a valid CXXScopeSpec is passed to CorrectTypo)
and ranking synthesized namespace qualifiers relative to the existing
qualifier is now performed. Support for disambiguating the string
representation of synthesized namespace qualifers has also been added
(the change to test/Parser/cxx-using-directive.cpp is an example of an
ambiguous relative qualifier).
llvm-svn: 150622
* if, switch, range-based for: warn if semicolon is on the same line.
* for, while: warn if semicolon is on the same line and either next
statement is compound statement or next statement has more
indentation.
Replacing the semicolon with {} or moving the semicolon to the next
line will always silence the warning.
Tests from SemaCXX/if-empty-body.cpp merged into SemaCXX/warn-empty-body.cpp.
llvm-svn: 150515
Richard Smith