@property declaration to the autogenerated methods. I'm uncertain
whether this should apply to attributes in general, but these are
a reasonable core.
Implements rdar://problem/8617301
llvm-svn: 118676
using new/delete and OwningPtrs. After memory profiling Clang, I witnessed periodic leaks of these
objects; digging deeper into the code, it was clear that our management of these objects was a mess. The ownership rules were murky at best, and not always followed. Worse, there are plenty of error paths where we could screw up.
This patch introduces AttributeList::Factory, which is a factory class that creates AttributeList
objects and then blows them away all at once. While conceptually simple, most of the changes in
this patch just have to do with migrating over to the new interface. Most of the changes have resulted in some nice simplifications.
This new strategy currently holds on to all AttributeList objects during the lifetime of the Parser
object. This is easily tunable. If we desire to have more bound the lifetime of AttributeList
objects more precisely, we can have the AttributeList::Factory object (in Parser) push/pop its
underlying allocator as we enter/leave key methods in the Parser. This means that we get
simple memory management while still having the ability to finely control memory use if necessary.
Note that because AttributeList objects are now BumpPtrAllocated, we may reduce malloc() traffic
in many large files with attributes.
This fixes the leak reported in: <rdar://problem/8650003>
llvm-svn: 118675
own subcategory, -Wconstant-conversion, which is on by default.
Tweak the constant folder to give better results in the invalid
case of a negative shift amount.
Implements rdar://problem/6792488
llvm-svn: 118636
That bug concerned the well-formedness of code such as (&ovl)(a, b,
c). GCC rejects the code, while EDG accepts it. On further study of the
standard, I see no support for EDG's position: in particular, C++
[over.over] does not list this as a context where we can take the
address of an overloaded function, C++ [over.call.func] does not
reference the address-of operator at any point, and C++ [expr.call]
claims that the function argument in a call is either a function
lvalue or a pointer-to-function; (&ovl) is neither.
llvm-svn: 118620
mangler. Now member functions and pointers thereof have their calling
convention mangled as __thiscall if they have the default CC (even though,
they technically still have the __cdecl CC).
llvm-svn: 118598
location where we're spelling a token even within a
macro. clang_getInstantiationLocation() tells where we instantiated
the macro.
I'm still not thrilled with the CXSourceLocation/CXSourceRange APIs,
since they gloss over macro-instantiation information.
Take 2: this time, adjusted tests appropriately and used a "simple"
approach to the spelling location.
llvm-svn: 118495
location where we're spelling a token even within a
macro. clang_getInstantiationLocation() tells where we instantiated
the macro.
I'm still not thrilled with the CXSourceLocation/CXSourceRange APIs,
since they gloss over macro-instantiation information.
llvm-svn: 118492
John McCall