the GNU documentation: the attribute only appertains to the label if it is
followed by a semicolon. Based on a patch by Aaron Ballman!
llvm-svn: 194869
By adding a default config.excludes pattern we can avoid individual
suppressions in subdirectories.
This matches LLVM's lit.cfg which also excludes a few other common non-test
filenames for consistency.
llvm-svn: 194814
where we didn't. Extend our constant evaluation for __builtin_strlen to handle
any constant array of chars, not just string literals, to match.
llvm-svn: 194762
bit fields of zero size. Warnings are generated in C++ mode and if
only such type is defined inside extern "C" block.
The patch fixed PR5065.
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2151
llvm-svn: 194653
We already have builtins that are only available in GNU mode, so this
mirrors that.
Reviewers: rsmith
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2128
llvm-svn: 194615
This patch fixes PR8264. Duplicate qualifiers already are diagnozed,
now the same diagnostics is issued for duplicate function specifiers.
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2025
llvm-svn: 194559
See http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-dev/2013-November/033369.html for discussion on cfe-dev.
This fix explicitly checks whether we are within the declcontext of a lambda's call operator - which is what I had intended to be true (and assumed would be true if getCurLambda returns a valid pointer) before checking whether a lambda can capture the potential-captures of the innermost lambda.
A deeper fix (that addresses why getCurLambda() returns a valid pointer when perhaps it shouldn't?) - as proposed by Richard Smith in http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=17877 - has been suggested as a FIXME.
Patch was LGTM'd by Richard (just barely :)
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2144
llvm-svn: 194448
Both Richard and I felt that the current wording in the working paper needed some tweaking - Please see http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2035 for additional context and references to core-reflector messages that discuss wording tweaks.
What is implemented is what we had intended to specify in Bristol; but, recently felt that the specification might benefit from some tweaking and fleshing.
As a rough attempt to explain the semantics: If a nested lambda with a default-capture names a variable within its body, and if the enclosing full expression that contains the name of that variable is instantiation-dependent - then an enclosing lambda that is capture-ready (i.e. within a non-dependent context) must capture that variable, if all intervening nested lambdas can potentially capture that variable if they need to, and all intervening parent lambdas of the capture-ready lambda can and do capture the variable.
Of note, 'this' capturing is also currently underspecified in the working paper for generic lambdas. What is implemented here is if the set of candidate functions in a nested generic lambda includes both static and non-static member functions (regardless of viability checking - i.e. num and type of parameters/arguments) - and if all intervening nested-inner lambdas between the capture-ready lambda and the function-call containing nested lambda can capture 'this' and if all enclosing lambdas of the capture-ready lambda can capture 'this', then 'this' is speculatively captured by that capture-ready lambda.
Hopefully a paper for the C++ committee (that Richard and I had started some preliminary work on) is forthcoming.
This essentially makes generic lambdas feature complete, except for known bugs. The more prominent ones (and the ones I am currently aware of) being:
- generic lambdas and init-captures are broken - but a patch that fixes this is already in the works ...
- nested variadic expansions such as:
auto K = [](auto ... OuterArgs) {
vp([=](auto ... Is) {
decltype(OuterArgs) OA = OuterArgs;
return 0;
}(5)...);
return 0;
};
auto M = K('a', ' ', 1, " -- ", 3.14);
currently cause crashes. I think I know how to fix this (since I had done so in my initial implementation) - but it will probably take some work and back & forth with Doug and Richard.
A warm thanks to all who provided feedback - and especially to Doug Gregor and Richard Smith for their pivotal guidance: their insight and prestidigitation in such matters is boundless!
Now let's hope this commit doesn't upset the buildbot gods ;)
Thanks!
llvm-svn: 194188
bit more robust against future changes. This includes a slight diagnostic
improvement: if we know we're only trying to form a constant expression, take
the first diagnostic which shows the expression is not a constant expression,
rather than preferring the first one which makes the expression unfoldable.
llvm-svn: 194098
Similar C code isn't caught as it seems to hit a different code path.
Also, as the check is only done for record pointers, cases involving
an overloaded operator-> are not handled either. Note that the reason
this check is done in the parser instead of Sema is not related to
having enough knowledge about the current state as it is about being
able to fix up the parser's state to be able to recover and traverse the
correct code paths.
llvm-svn: 194002
If the sole distinction between two declarations is that one has a
__restrict qualifier then we should not consider it to be an overload.
Instead, we will consider it as an incompatible redeclaration which is
similar to how MSVC, ICC and GCC would handle it.
This fixes PR17786.
N.B. We must not mangle in __restrict into method qualifiers becase we
don't allow overloading between such declarations anymore. To do
otherwise would be a violation of the Itanium ABI.
llvm-svn: 193964
Flexible array members only work out if they are the last field of a
record, however virtual bases would give us many situations where the
flexible array member would overlap with the virtual base fields.
It is unlikely in the extreme that this behavior was intended by the
user so raise a diagnostic instead of accepting. This is will not
reject conforming code because flexible array members are an extension
in C++ mode.
llvm-svn: 193920
The determination of which diagnostics would be issued for certain
anonymous unions started to get a little ridiculous. Clean this up by
inverting the condition-tree's logic from dialect -> issue to
issue -> diagnostic.
As part of this cleanup, move ext_c99_flexible_array_member from
DiagnosticParseKinds.td to DiagnosticSemaKinds.td because it's driven by
Sema, not Parse.
Also, the liberty was taken to edit ext_c99_flexible_array_member to
match other, similar, diagnostics.
llvm-svn: 193919
Specifically, this warns when a character literal is added (using '+') to a
variable with type 'char *' (or any other pointer to character type). Like
-Wstring-plus-int, there is a fix-it to change "foo + 'a'" to "&foo['a']"
iff the character literal is on the right side of the string.
Patch by Anders Rönnholm!
llvm-svn: 193418
Change the uninitialized field warnings so that field initializers are checked
inside the constructor. Previously, in class initializers were checked
separately. Running one set of checks also simplifies the logic for preventing
duplicate warnings. Added new checks to warn when an uninitialized field is
used in base class initialization. Also fixed misspelling of uninitialized
and moved all code for this warning together.
llvm-svn: 193386
This patch fixes the typelocs of the conversion-operator and the conversion-operator-name and adds the parameters of the call operator to the FunctionProtoTypeLoc of the respective entities. Thus, when the template declarations (conversion operators) undergo deduction and instantiation/transformation/substitution - they add themselves to the local instantiation scope if needed.
This patch supports the following:
auto L = [](auto b) {
return [](auto a) ->decltype(a) { return a; };
};
int (*fp)(int) = L(8);
Richard LGTM'd this patch: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1831
Thanks!
llvm-svn: 193294
A previous attempt http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20130930/090049.html resulted in PR 17476, and was reverted,
The original TransformLambdaExpr (pre generic-lambdas) transformed the TypeSourceInfo of the Call operator in its own instantiation scope via TransformType. This resulted in the parameters of the call operator being mapped to their transformed counterparts in an instantiation scope that would get popped off.
Then a call to TransformFunctionParameters would add the parameters and their transformed mappings (but newly created ones!) to the current instantiation scope. This would result in a disconnect between the new call operator's TSI parameters and those used to construct the call operator declaration. This was ok in the non-generic lambda world - but would cause issues with nested transformations (when non-generic and generics were interleaved) in the generic lambda world - that I somewhat kludged around initially - but this resulted in PR17476.
The new approach seems cleaner. We only do the transformation of the TypeSourceInfo - but we make sure to do it in the current instantiation scope so we don't lose the untransformed to transformed mappings of the ParmVarDecls when they get created.
Another attempt caused a test to fail (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20131021/091533.html) and also had to be reverted - my apologies - in my haste, i did not run all the tests - argh!
Now all the tests seem to pass - but a Fixme has been added - since I suspect Richard will find the fix a little inelegant ;) I shall try and work on a more elegant fix once I have had a chance to discuss with Richard or Doug at a later date.
Hopefully the third time;s a charm *fingers crossed*
This does not yet include capturing.
Please see test file for examples.
This patch was LGTM'd by Doug:
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1784
llvm-svn: 193230
They were causing CodeGenCXX/mangle-exprs.cpp to fail.
Revert "Remove the circular reference to LambdaExpr in CXXRecordDecl."
Revert "Again: Teach TreeTransform and family how to transform generic lambdas nested within templates and themselves."
llvm-svn: 193226
lambdas nested within templates and themselves.
A previous attempt http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20130930/090049.html resulted in PR 17476, and was reverted,
The original TransformLambdaExpr (pre generic-lambdas) transformed the TypeSourceInfo of the Call operator in its own instantiation scope via TransformType. This resulted in the parameters of the call operator being mapped to their transformed counterparts in an instantiation scope that would get popped off.
Then a call to TransformFunctionParameters would add the parameters and their transformed mappings (but newly created ones!) to the current instantiation scope. This would result in a disconnect between the new call operator's TSI parameters and those used to construct the call operator declaration. This was ok in the non-generic lambda world - but would cause issues with nested transformations (when non-generic and generics were interleaved) in the generic lambda world - that I somewhat kludged around initially - but this resulted in PR17476.
The new approach seems cleaner. We only do the transformation of the TypeSourceInfo - but we make sure to do it in the current instantiation scope so we don't lose the untransformed to transformed mappings of the ParmVarDecls when they get created.
This does not yet include capturing.
Please see test file for examples.
This patch was LGTM'd by Doug:
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1784
llvm-svn: 193216
With this extension, friend function declarations will retain the language
linkage specified for previous declarations instead of emitting an error
diagnostic.
The feature is known to be compatible with GCC and MSVC and permits a
language to be specified indirectly where it cannot otherwise be written
directly in class scope.
Work is ongoing to improve linkage spec diagnostics.
Fixes PR17337.
Reviewed by Richard Smith.
llvm-svn: 193206
This fixes pr17624.
A FIXME from Richard Smith:
It seems to me that the root cause is that a per-Decl 'used' flag doesn't
really make much sense in the way we use it now. I think we should either track
whether that particular declaration is used (with isUsed scanning the entire
redecl chain), or we should only have one flag for the entire redeclaration
chain (perhaps by always looking at the flag on either the most recent decl or
the canonical decl). Modeling it as "is this declaration or any previous
declaration used" is weird, and requires contortions like the loop at the end
of Sema::MarkFunctionReferenced.
llvm-svn: 193202
Richard Smith