the "typed" text, first, then take into account
nested-name-specifiers, name hiding, etc. This means that the
resulting sort is actually alphabetical :)
llvm-svn: 93370
added to the FSub version. However, the original version of this xform guarded
against doing this for floating point (!Op0->getType()->isFPOrFPVector()).
This is causing LLVM to perform incorrect xforms for code like:
void func(double *rhi, double *rlo, double xh, double xl, double yh, double yl){
double mh, ml;
double c = 134217729.0;
double up, u1, u2, vp, v1, v2;
up = xh*c;
u1 = (xh - up) + up;
u2 = xh - u1;
vp = yh*c;
v1 = (yh - vp) + vp;
v2 = yh - v1;
mh = xh*yh;
ml = (((u1*v1 - mh) + (u1*v2)) + (u2*v1)) + (u2*v2);
ml += xh*yl + xl*yh;
*rhi = mh + ml;
*rlo = (mh - (*rhi)) + ml;
}
The last line was optimized away, but rl is intended to be the difference
between the infinitely precise result of mh + ml and after it has been rounded
to double precision.
llvm-svn: 93369
to be considering user-defined conversions in the first place.
Doug, please review; I'm not sure what we should be doing if we see a real
ambiguity in selecting a copy constructor when otherwise suppressing
user-defined conversions.
Fixes PR6014.
llvm-svn: 93365
provide completions for @ keywords. Previously, we only provided
@-completions after an @ was actually typed, which is useful but
probably not the common case.
Also, make sure a few Objective-C 2.0 completions only show up when
Objective-C 2.0 support is enabled (the default).
llvm-svn: 93354
that name constructors, the endless joys of out-of-line constructor
definitions, and various other corner cases that the previous hack
never imagined. Fixes PR5688 and tightens up semantic analysis for
constructor names.
Additionally, fixed a problem where we wouldn't properly enter the
declarator scope of a parenthesized declarator. We were entering the
scope, then leaving it when we saw the ")"; now, we re-enter the
declarator scope before parsing the parameter list.
Note that we are forced to perform some tentative parsing within a
class (call it C) to tell the difference between
C(int); // constructor
and
C (f)(int); // member function
which is rather unfortunate. And, although it isn't necessary for
correctness, we use the same tentative-parsing mechanism for
out-of-line constructors to improve diagnostics in icky cases like:
C::C C::f(int); // error: C::C refers to the constructor name, but
// we complain nicely and recover by treating it as
// a type.
llvm-svn: 93322
Fariborz Jahanian