function-style cast.
This fires for cases such as
T(x);
... where 'x' was previously declared and T is a type. This construct declares
a variable named 'x' rather than the (probably expected) interpretation of a
function-style cast of 'x' to T.
llvm-svn: 314570
Printing typedefs or type aliases using clang_getTypeSpelling() is missing the
namespace they are defined in. This is in contrast to other types that always
yield the full typename including namespaces.
Patch by Michael Reiher!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29944
llvm-svn: 297465
name. If the dependent name happened to end in a template-id (X<T>::Y<U>), we
would fail to notice that the 'typename' keyword is missing when resolving it
to a type.
It turns out that GCC has a similar bug. If this shows up in much real code, we
can easily downgrade this to an ExtWarn.
llvm-svn: 293815
Under this defect resolution, the injected-class-name of a class or class
template cannot be used except in very limited circumstances (when declaring a
constructor, in a nested-name-specifier, in a base-specifier, or in an
elaborated-type-specifier). This is apparently done to make parsing easier, but
it's a pain for us since we don't know whether a template-id using the
injected-class-name is valid at the point when we annotate it (we don't yet
know whether the template-id will become part of an elaborated-type-specifier).
As a tentative resolution to a perceived language defect, mem-initializer-ids
are added to the list of exceptions here (they generally follow the same rules
as base-specifiers).
When the reference to the injected-class-name uses the 'typename' or 'template'
keywords, we permit it to be used to name a type or template as an extension;
other compilers also accept some cases in this area. There are also a couple of
corner cases with dependent template names that we do not yet diagnose, but
which will also get this treatment.
llvm-svn: 292518
Other compilers accept invalid code here that we reject, and we need a
better error message to try to convince users that the code is really
incorrect. Consider:
class Foo {
typedef MyIterHelper<Foo> iterator;
friend class iterator;
};
Previously our wording was "elaborated type refers to a typedef".
"elaborated type" isn't widely known terminology, so the new diagnostic
says "typedef 'iterator' cannot be referenced with class specifier".
Reviewers: rsmith
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25216
llvm-svn: 289259
Replace inheriting constructors implementation with new approach, voted into
C++ last year as a DR against C++11.
Instead of synthesizing a set of derived class constructors for each inherited
base class constructor, we make the constructors of the base class visible to
constructor lookup in the derived class, using the normal rules for
using-declarations.
For constructors, UsingShadowDecl now has a ConstructorUsingShadowDecl derived
class that tracks the requisite additional information. We create shadow
constructors (not found by name lookup) in the derived class to model the
actual initialization, and have a new expression node,
CXXInheritedCtorInitExpr, to model the initialization of a base class from such
a constructor. (This initialization is special because it performs real perfect
forwarding of arguments.)
In cases where argument forwarding is not possible (for inalloca calls,
variadic calls, and calls with callee parameter cleanup), the shadow inheriting
constructor is not emitted and instead we directly emit the initialization code
into the caller of the inherited constructor.
Note that this new model is not perfectly compatible with the old model in some
corner cases. In particular:
* if B inherits a private constructor from A, and C uses that constructor to
construct a B, then we previously required that A befriends B and B
befriends C, but the new rules require A to befriend C directly, and
* if a derived class has its own constructors (and so its implicit default
constructor is suppressed), it may still inherit a default constructor from
a base class
llvm-svn: 274049
Previously if an enumeration was used in a nested name specifier in pre-C++11
language dialect, error message was 'XXX is not a class, namespace, or scoped
enumeration'. This patch removes the word 'scoped' as in C++11 any enumeration
may be used in this context.
llvm-svn: 226410
Summary:
Naming the destructor using a typedef-name for the class-name is
well-formed.
This fixes PR19620.
Reviewers: rsmith, doug.gregor
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3583
llvm-svn: 209319
Rather than simply saying "X is not a class or namespace", clarify what
X is by providing the aka type in the case where X is a type, or
pointing to the named declaration if there's an unambiguous one to refer
to. In the ambiguous case, the ambiguities are already enumerated
(though could be clarified by describing what kind of entities they are)
Included a few FIXMEs in tests where some further improvements could be
made.
llvm-svn: 201038
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
Unlike with namespaces, searching inside of classes requires also
checking the access to correction candidates (i.e. don't suggest a
correction to a private class member for a correction occurring outside
that class and its methods or friends).
Included is a small (one line) fix for a bug, that was uncovered while
cleaning up the unit tests, where the decls from a TypoCorrection candidate
were preserved in new TypoCorrection candidates that are derived (copied)
from the old TypoCorrection--notably when creating a new candidate by
changing the NestedNameSpecifier associated with the base idenitifer.
llvm-svn: 191449
This fixes a regression I introduced in r178136, where we would not
consider the using directives from the semantic declaration contexts
that aren't represented by the lexical scopes (Scope) when performing
unqualified name lookup. This lead to horribly funny diagnostics like
"no identifier named 'foo'; did you mean 'foo'?".
llvm-svn: 179067
access expression is the start of a template-id, ignore function
templates found in the context of the entire postfix-expression. Fixes
PR11856.
llvm-svn: 152520
diagnostic message are compared. If either is a substring of the other, then
no error is given. This gives rise to an unexpected case:
// expect-error{{candidate function has different number of parameters}}
will match the following error messages from Clang:
candidate function has different number of parameters (expected 1 but has 2)
candidate function has different number of parameters
It will also match these other error messages:
candidate function
function has different number of parameters
number of parameters
This patch will change so that the verification string must be a substring of
the diagnostic message before accepting. Also, all the failing tests from this
change have been corrected. Some stats from this cleanup:
87 - removed extra spaces around verification strings
70 - wording updates to diagnostics
40 - extra leading or trailing characters (typos, unmatched parens or quotes)
35 - diagnostic level was included (error:, warning:, or note:)
18 - flag name put in the warning (-Wprotocol)
llvm-svn: 146619
a member template, e.g.,
x.f<int>
if we have found a template in the type of x, but the lookup in the
current scope is ambiguous, just ignore the lookup in the current
scope. Fixes <rdar://problem/9915664>.
llvm-svn: 137255
vector<int>
to
std::vector<int>
Patch by Kaelyn Uhrain, with minor tweaks + PCH support from me. Fixes
PR5776/<rdar://problem/8652971>.
Thanks Kaelyn!
llvm-svn: 134007
should use a constructor to default-initialize a
variable. InitializationSequence knows the rules for default
initialization, better. Fixes <rdar://problem/8501008>.
llvm-svn: 131796
a member template, and you try to call the member template with an explicit
template argument. See PR7247
For example, this downgrades the error to a warning in:
template<typename T> struct set{};
struct Value {
template<typename T>
void set(T value) {
}
};
void foo() {
Value v;
v.set<double>(3.2); // Warning here.
}
llvm-svn: 105518
the x86-64 __va_list_tag with this attribute. The attribute causes the
affected type to behave like a fundamental type when considered by ADL.
(x86-64 is the only target we currently provide with a struct-based
__builtin_va_list)
Fixes PR6762.
llvm-svn: 104941
Richard Smith