for loop if both members exist.
This resolves a DR whereby an errant 'begin' or 'end' member in a base
class could result in a derived class not being usable as a range with
non-member 'begin' and 'end'.
llvm-svn: 342925
(Re-submission of D39937 with fixed tests.)
Adjust wording for const-qualification mismatch to be a little more clear.
Also add another diagnostic for a ref qualifier mismatch, which previously produced a useless error (this error path is simply very old; see rL119336):
Before:
error: cannot initialize object parameter of type 'X0' with an expression of type 'X0'
After:
error: 'this' argument to member function 'rvalue' is an lvalue, but function has rvalue ref-qualifier
Reviewers: aaron.ballman
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman
Subscribers: lebedev.ri, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41646
llvm-svn: 321609
This fixes PR22492, which is in response to CWG issue #1204.
Per the CWG issue 'contexpr' variables are now allowed in
for range loops.
llvm-svn: 229716
This fixes PR22492, which is in response to CWG issue #1204.
Per the CWG issue 'contexpr' variables are now allowed in
for range loops.
llvm-svn: 229543
- 'register' storage class
- dynamic exception specifications
Only the former check is enabled by default for now (the latter might be quite noisy).
llvm-svn: 183881
The old error message stating that 'begin' was an undeclared identifier
is replaced with a new message explaining that the error is in the range
expression, along with which of the begin() and end() functions was
problematic if relevant.
Additionally, if the range was a pointer type or defines operator*,
attempt to dereference the range, and offer a FixIt if the modified range
works.
llvm-svn: 162248
This comes up in the begin/end calls of a range-for (see the included test
case). Other suggestions are welcome, though this seems to do the trick without
regressing anything.
llvm-svn: 157553
diagnostic message are compared. If either is a substring of the other, then
no error is given. This gives rise to an unexpected case:
// expect-error{{candidate function has different number of parameters}}
will match the following error messages from Clang:
candidate function has different number of parameters (expected 1 but has 2)
candidate function has different number of parameters
It will also match these other error messages:
candidate function
function has different number of parameters
number of parameters
This patch will change so that the verification string must be a substring of
the diagnostic message before accepting. Also, all the failing tests from this
change have been corrected. Some stats from this cleanup:
87 - removed extra spaces around verification strings
70 - wording updates to diagnostics
40 - extra leading or trailing characters (typos, unmatched parens or quotes)
35 - diagnostic level was included (error:, warning:, or note:)
18 - flag name put in the warning (-Wprotocol)
llvm-svn: 146619
We had an extension which allowed const static class members of floating-point type to have in-class initializers, 'as a C++0x extension'. However, C++0x does not allow this. The extension has been kept, and extended to all literal types in C++0x mode (with a fixit to add the 'constexpr' specifier).
llvm-svn: 140801
This makes the code duplication of implicit special member handling even worse,
but the cleanup will have to come later. For now, this works.
Follow-up with tests for explicit defaulting and enabling the __has_feature
flag to come.
llvm-svn: 138821
arithmetic into a couple of common routines. Use these to make the
messages more consistent in the various contexts, especially in terms of
consistently diagnosing binary operators with invalid types on both the
left- and right-hand side. Also, improve the grammar and wording of the
messages some, handling both two pointers and two (different) types.
The wording of function pointer arithmetic diagnostics still strikes me
as poorly phrased, and I worry this makes them slightly more awkward if
more consistent. I'm hoping to fix that with a follow-on patch and test
case that will also make them more helpful when a typedef or template
type parameter makes the type completely opaque.
Suggestions on better wording are very welcome, thanks to Richard Smith
for some initial help on that front.
llvm-svn: 133906
Richard Smith