This implements something like the current direction of DR1581: we use a narrow
syntactic check to determine the set of places where a constant expression
could be evaluated, and only instantiate a constexpr function or variable if
it's referenced in one of those contexts, or is odr-used.
It's not yet clear whether this is the right set of syntactic locations; we
currently consider all contexts within templates that would result in odr-uses
after instantiation, and contexts within list-initialization (narrowing
conversions take another victim...), as requiring instantiation. We could in
principle restrict the former cases more (only const integral / reference
variable initializers, and contexts in which a constant expression is required,
perhaps). However, this is sufficient to allow us to accept libstdc++ code,
which relies on GCC's behavior (which appears to be somewhat similar to this
approach).
llvm-svn: 291318
mirror the description in the standard. Per DR1295, this means that binding a
const / rvalue reference to a bit-field no longer "binds directly", and per
P0135R1, this means that we materialize a temporary in reference binding
after adjusting cv-qualifiers and before performing a derived-to-base cast.
In C++11 onwards, this should have fixed the last case where we would
materialize a temporary of the wrong type (with a subobject adjustment inside
the MaterializeTemporaryExpr instead of outside), but we still have to deal
with that possibility in C++98, unless we want to start using xvalues to
represent materialized temporaries there too.
llvm-svn: 289250
It is possible for a field and a class to have the same name. In such
cases, performing lookup for the field might return a result set with
more than one entry. An overzealous assertion fired, causing us to
crash instead of using the non-class lookup result.
This fixes PR28060.
llvm-svn: 272247
We forgot to mark designated initializer expression that contain type
dependent array designators as type dependent. This would lead to
crashes when we try to determine which array element we were trying to
initialize.
This fixes PR22056.
llvm-svn: 225494
Specifically, when we have this situation:
struct A {
template <typename T> struct B {
int m1 = sizeof(A);
};
B<int> m2;
};
We can't parse m1's initializer eagerly because we need A to be
complete. Therefore we wait until the end of A's class scope to parse
it. However, we can trigger instantiation of B before the end of A,
which will attempt to instantiate the field decls eagerly, and it would
build a bad field decl instantiation that said it had an initializer but
actually lacked one.
Fixed by deferring instantiation of default member initializers until
they are needed during constructor analysis. This addresses a long
standing FIXME in the code.
Fixes PR19195.
Reviewed By: rsmith
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5690
llvm-svn: 222192
override for the type of 'this', also clear it out (unless we're entering the
context of a lambda-expression, where it should be inherited).
llvm-svn: 199962
a defaulted special member function until the exception specification is needed
(using the same criteria used for the delayed instantiation of exception
specifications for function temploids).
EST_Delayed is now EST_Unevaluated (using 1330's terminology), and, like
EST_Uninstantiated, carries a pointer to the FunctionDecl which will be used to
resolve the exception specification.
This is enabled for all C++ modes: it's a little faster in the case where the
exception specification isn't used, allows our C++11-in-C++98 extensions to
work, and is still correct for C++98, since in that mode the computation of the
exception specification can't fail.
The diagnostics here aren't great (in particular, we should include implicit
evaluation of exception specifications for defaulted special members in the
template instantiation backtraces), but they're not much worse than before.
Our approach to the problem of cycles between in-class initializers and the
exception specification for a defaulted default constructor is modified a
little by this change -- we now reject any odr-use of a defaulted default
constructor if that constructor uses an in-class initializer and the use is in
an in-class initialzer which is declared lexically earlier. This is a closer
approximation to the current draft solution in core issue 1351, but isn't an
exact match (but the current draft wording isn't reasonable, so that's to be
expected).
llvm-svn: 160847
ctor-initializer, remember to call the Sema action to generate default
ctor-initializers. What a delightful little miscompile. Fixes PR10578
/ <rdar://problem/9877267>.
llvm-svn: 139253
struct {
typedef int A = 0;
};
According to the C++11 standard, this is not ill-formed, but does not have any ascribed meaning. We can't reasonably accept it, so treat it as ill-formed.
Also switch C++ from an incorrect 'fields can only be initialized in constructors' diagnostic for this case to C's 'illegal initializer (only variables can be initialized)'
llvm-svn: 132890
Richard Smith