the DeclaratorInfo, one for semantic analysis), just build a single type whose
canonical type will reflect the semantic analysis (assuming the type is
well-formed, of course).
To make that work, make a few changes to the type system:
* allow the nominal pointee type of a reference type to be a (possibly sugared)
reference type. Also, preserve the original spelling of the reference type.
Both of these can be ignored on canonical reference types.
* Remove ObjCProtocolListType and preserve the associated source information on
the various ObjC TypeLocs. Preserve the spelling of protocol lists except in
the canonical form.
* Preserve some level of source type structure on parameter types, but
canonicalize on the canonical function type. This is still a WIP.
Drops code size, makes strides towards accurate source location representation,
slight (~1.7%) progression on Cocoa.h because of complexity drop.
llvm-svn: 84907
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
printing logic to help customize the output. For now, we use this
rather than a special flag to suppress the "struct" when printing
"struct X" and to print the Boolean type as "bool" in C++ but "_Bool"
in C.
llvm-svn: 72590
a.k.a. Koenig lookup) in C++. Most of the pieces are in place, but for
two:
- In an unqualified call g(x), even if the name does not refer to
anything in the current scope, we can still find functions named
"g" based on ADL. We don't yet have this ability.
- ADL will need updating for friend functions and templates.
llvm-svn: 63692
being called to be converted to a reference-to-function,
pointer-to-function, or reference-to-pointer-to-function. This is done
through "surrogate" candidate functions that model the conversions
from the object to the function (reference/pointer) and the
conversions in the arguments.
llvm-svn: 59674
with function call syntax, e.g.,
Functor f;
f(x, y);
This is the easy part of handling calls to objects of class type
(C++ [over.call.object]). The hard part (coping with conversions from
f to function pointer or reference types) will come later. Nobody uses
that stuff anyway, right? :)
llvm-svn: 59663
built-in operator candidates. Test overloading of '&' and ','.
In C++, a comma expression is an lvalue if its right-hand
subexpression is an lvalue. Update Expr::isLvalue accordingly.
llvm-svn: 59643
post-decrement, including support for generating all of the built-in
operator candidates for these operators.
C++ and C have different rules for the arguments to the builtin unary
'+' and '-'. Implemented both variants in Sema::ActOnUnaryOp.
In C++, pre-increment and pre-decrement return lvalues. Update
Expr::isLvalue accordingly.
llvm-svn: 59638
not "int".
Fix a typo in the promotion of enumeration types that was causing some
integral promotions to look like integral conversions (leading to
extra ambiguities in overload resolution).
Check for "acceptable" overloaded operators based on the types of the
arguments. This is a somewhat odd check that is specified by the
standard, but I can't see why it actually matters: the overload
candidates it suppresses don't seem like they would ever be picked as
the best candidates.
llvm-svn: 59583
to support operators defined as member functions, e.g.,
struct X {
bool operator==(X&);
};
Overloading with non-member operators is supported, and the special
rules for the implicit object parameter (e.g., the ability for a
non-const *this to bind to an rvalue) are implemented.
This change also refactors and generalizes the code for adding
overload candidates for overloaded operator calls (C++ [over.match.expr]),
both to match the rules more exactly (name lookup of non-member
operators actually ignores member operators) and to make this routine
more reusable for the other overloaded operators.
Testing for the initialization of the implicit object parameter is
very light. More tests will come when we get support for calling
member functions directly (e.g., o.m(a1, a2)).
llvm-svn: 59564
operators. For example, one can now write "x + y" where x or y is a
class or enumeration type, and Clang will perform overload resolution
for "+" based on the overloaded operators it finds.
The other kinds of overloadable operators in C++ will follow this same
approach.
Three major issues remain:
1) We don't find member operators
2) Since we don't have user-defined conversion operators, we can't
call any of the built-in overloaded operators in C++ [over.built].
3) Once we've done the semantic checks, we drop the overloaded
operator on the floor; it doesn't get into the AST at all.
llvm-svn: 58821
Sebastian Redl