type-checking within a template definition. In this case, the
"instantiated" declaration is just the declaration itself, found
within the current instantiation. Fixes PR6239.
llvm-svn: 95442
InitializationSequence (when a FunctionDecl is present). This required
a few small fixes to initialization sequences:
- Make sure to use the adjusted parameter type for initialization of
function parameters.
- Implement transparent union calling semantics in C
llvm-svn: 91902
new InitializationSequence. This fixes some bugs (e.g., PR5808),
changed some diagnostics, and caused more churn than expected. What's
new:
- InitializationSequence now has a "C conversion sequence" category
and step kind, which falls back to
- Changed the diagnostics for returns to always have the result type
of the function first and the type of the expression second.
CheckSingleAssignmentConstraints to peform checking in C.
- Improved ASTs for initialization of return values. The ASTs now
capture all of the temporaries we need to create, but
intentionally do not bind the tempoary that is actually returned,
so that it won't get destroyed twice.
- Make sure to perform an (elidable!) copy of the class object that
is returned from a class.
- Fix copy elision in CodeGen to properly see through the
subexpressions that occur with elidable copies.
- Give "new" its own entity kind; as with return values and thrown
objects, we don't bind the expression so we don't call a
destructor for it.
Note that, with this patch, I've broken returning move-only types in
C++0x. We'll fix it later, when we tackle NRVO.
llvm-svn: 91669
- 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
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
to a multi-level template argument list by making it explicit. The
forced auditing of callers found a bug in the instantiation of member
classes inside member templates.
I *love* static type systems.
llvm-svn: 80391
When performing template instantiation of the definitions of member
templates (or members thereof), we build a data structure containing
the template arguments from each "level" of template
instantiation. During template instantiation, we substitute all levels
of template arguments simultaneously.
llvm-svn: 80389
templates within class templates, producing a member function template
of a class template specialization. If you can parse that, I'm
sorry. Example:
template<typename T>
struct X {
template<typename U> void f(T, U);
};
When we instantiate X<int>, we now instantiate the declaration
X<int>::f, which looks like this:
template<typename U> void X<int>::f(int, U);
The path this takes through
TemplateDeclInstantiator::VisitCXXMethodDecl is convoluted and
ugly, but I don't know how to improve it yet. I'm resting my hopes on
the multi-level substitution required to instantiate definitions of
nested templates, which may simplify this code as well.
More testing to come...
llvm-svn: 80252
Douglas Gregor