Previously we implemented non-standard disambiguation rules to
distinguish an enum-base from a bit-field but otherwise treated a :
after an elaborated-enum-specifier as introducing an enum-base. That
misparses various examples (anywhere an elaborated-type-specifier can
appear followed by a colon, such as within a ternary operator or
_Generic).
We now implement the C++11 rules, with the old cases accepted as
extensions where that seemed reasonable. These amount to:
* an enum-base must always be accompanied by an enum definition (except
in a standalone declaration of the form 'enum E : T;')
* in a member-declaration, 'enum E :' always introduces an enum-base,
never a bit-field
* in a type-specifier (or similar context), 'enum E :' is not
permitted; the colon means whatever else it would mean in that
context.
Fixed underlying types for enums are also permitted in Objective-C and
under MS extensions, plus as a language extension in all other modes.
The behavior in ObjC and MS extensions modes is unchanged (but the
bit-field disambiguation is a bit better); remaining language modes
follow the C++11 rules.
Fixes PR45726, PR39979, PR19810, PR44941, and most of PR24297, plus C++
core issues 1514 and 1966.
object rather than tracking the originating expression.
This is groundwork for supporting polymorphic typeid expressions. (Note
that this somewhat regresses our support for DR1968, but it turns out
that that never actually worked anyway, at least in non-trivial cases.)
This reinstates r360974, reverted in r360988, with a fix for a
static_assert failure on 32-bit builds: force Type base class to have
8-byte alignment like the rest of Clang's AST nodes.
llvm-svn: 360995
object rather than tracking the originating expression.
This is groundwork for supporting polymorphic typeid expressions. (Note
that this somewhat regresses our support for DR1968, but it turns out
that that never actually worked anyway, at least in non-trivial cases.)
llvm-svn: 360974
The rule we use is that a construction of a class type T from an argument of
type U cannot use an inherited constructor if U is the same as T or is derived
from T (or if the initialization would first convert it to such a type). This
(approximately) matches the rule in use by GCC, and matches the current proposed
DR resolution.
llvm-svn: 291403
Replace inheriting constructors implementation with new approach, voted into
C++ last year as a DR against C++11.
Instead of synthesizing a set of derived class constructors for each inherited
base class constructor, we make the constructors of the base class visible to
constructor lookup in the derived class, using the normal rules for
using-declarations.
For constructors, UsingShadowDecl now has a ConstructorUsingShadowDecl derived
class that tracks the requisite additional information. We create shadow
constructors (not found by name lookup) in the derived class to model the
actual initialization, and have a new expression node,
CXXInheritedCtorInitExpr, to model the initialization of a base class from such
a constructor. (This initialization is special because it performs real perfect
forwarding of arguments.)
In cases where argument forwarding is not possible (for inalloca calls,
variadic calls, and calls with callee parameter cleanup), the shadow inheriting
constructor is not emitted and instead we directly emit the initialization code
into the caller of the inherited constructor.
Note that this new model is not perfectly compatible with the old model in some
corner cases. In particular:
* if B inherits a private constructor from A, and C uses that constructor to
construct a B, then we previously required that A befriends B and B
befriends C, but the new rules require A to befriend C directly, and
* if a derived class has its own constructors (and so its implicit default
constructor is suppressed), it may still inherit a default constructor from
a base class
llvm-svn: 274049
selects a deleted function, the outer function is still a candidate even though
the initialization sequence is "otherwise ill-formed".
llvm-svn: 227169