terminated with an EOF token. The condition it is trying to check for is
handled by this code above.
// Empty arguments are standard in C99 and supported as an extension in
// other modes.
if (ArgTokens.empty() && !Features.C99)
Diag(Tok, diag::ext_empty_fnmacro_arg);
llvm-svn: 67705
stoppoint nodes around until Legalize; doing this
imposed an ordering on a sequence of loads that
came from different lines, interfering with scheduling.
llvm-svn: 67692
- This is really gross, but its the easiest way to match gcc. Once we
are confident in the driver, we can try and push these translations
down into tools.
- No test cases for this yet, it's hard to see the effects of these
translations before the gcc tool argument translation is pulled
over.
- Interaction with "unused argument" warning hasn't been worked out
yet.
- <rdar://problem/6717359> [driver] implement toolchain specific
argument translation.
"It's horrible in here."
llvm-svn: 67683
call, we should treat "i64 zext" as the start of a constant expr, but
"i64 0 zext" as an argument with an obsolete attribute on it (this form
is already tested by test/Assembler/2007-07-30-AutoUpgradeZextSext.ll).
Make the autoupgrade logic more discerning to avoid treating "i64 zext"
as an old-style attribute, causing us to reject a valid constant expr.
This fixes PR3876.
llvm-svn: 67682
representing symbolic expressions like 'x'+3 and 'x'+'y'. The design is
subjected to change later when we fix the class hierarchy of symbolic
expressions.
llvm-svn: 67678
- Lift ArgList to a base class for InputArgList and DerivedArgList.
- This is not a great decomposition, but it does embed the
translation into the type system, and keep things efficient for
tool chains that don't want to do any translation.
- No intended functionality change.
Eventually I hope to get rid of tool chain specific translation and
have each tool do the right thing, but for now this is the easiest way
to match gcc precisely (which is good for testing).
llvm-svn: 67676
class C {
C() { }
int a;
};
C::C() : a(10) { }
We also diagnose when initializers are used on declarations that aren't constructors:
t.cpp:1:10: error: only constructors take base initializers
void f() : a(10) { }
^
Doug and/or Sebastian: I'd appreciate a review, especially the nested-name-spec test results (from the looks of it we now match gcc in that test.)
llvm-svn: 67672
failure to perform a declaration. Instead, explicitly note semantic
failures that occur during template parsing with a DeclResult. Fixes
PR3872.
llvm-svn: 67659
Chris Lattner