As Richard Smith pointed out in the review of D90123, both the C and C++
standard call it lvalue and rvalue, so let's stick to the same spelling
in Clang.
because it expects a reference and receives a non-l-value.
For example, given:
int foo(int &);
template<int x> void b() { foo(x); }
clang will now print "expects an l-value for 1st argument" instead of
"no known conversion from 'int' to 'int &' for 1st argument". The change
in wording (and associated code to detect the case) was prompted by
comment #5 in PR3104, and should be the last bit of work needed for the
bug.
llvm-svn: 158691
resolution. There are two sources of problems involving user-defined
conversions that this change eliminates, along with providing simpler
interfaces for checking implicit conversions:
- It eliminates a case of infinite recursion found in Boost.
- It eliminates the search for the constructor needed to copy a temporary
generated by an implicit conversion from overload
resolution. Overload resolution assumes that, if it gets a value
of the parameter's class type (or a derived class thereof), there
is a way to copy if... even if there isn't. We now model this
properly.
llvm-svn: 101680
- 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
direct-initialization following a user-defined conversion can select
any constructor; it just can't employ any user-defined
conversions. So we ban those conversions and classify the constructor
call based on the relationship between the "from" and "to" types in
the conversion.
llvm-svn: 63554
sequence. Previously, we weren't permitting the second step to call
copy constructors, which left user-defined conversion sequences
surprisingly broken.
Now, we perform overload resolution among all of the constructors, but
only accept the result if it makes the conversion a standard
conversion. Note that this behavior is different from both GCC and EDG
(which don't agree with each other, either); I've submitted a core
issue on the matter.
llvm-svn: 63450
Aaron Puchert