Summary:
Declaring a function as inline after it has been defined is in violation
of [dcl.fct.spec]p4. The program would get a strong definition instead
of getting a function with linkonce_odr linkage.
Reviewers: rsmith
CC: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D3220
llvm-svn: 205129
(for an integer too large for any signed type) from Warning to ExtWarn -- it's
ill-formed in C++11 and C99 onwards, and UB during translation in C89 and
C++98. Add diagnostic groups for two relevant diagnostics.
llvm-svn: 203974
* Explicitly say that we conform to the two N/A bullets that required no
compiler changes.
* Remove a library feature from our features list.
llvm-svn: 203964
using-declaration, and they declare the same function (either because
the using-declaration is in the same namespace as the declaration it
imports, or because they're both extern "C"), they do not conflict.
llvm-svn: 200897
attribute syntax. There's nothing generalized about this; it's one of
several first-class attribute syntaxes we support, all of which are
more-or-less equally general.
As discussed on cfe-commits, we may want to revisit this if we start allowing
this syntax as an extension in C (or if C adopts the syntax), but hopefully
this diagnostic wording will be crystal clear to everyone in the mean time.
llvm-svn: 199443
Includes some style tweaks and removes the tautological observation that "Clang
is still under heavy development" -- it hopefully always will be.
llvm-svn: 199401
Also shuffle the Communication section so the bug tracker comes first.
(The sidebar isn't scrollable at the moment so this gives a better chance of
the bug tracker being seen. The links further down are basically invisible --
we should look into that.)
llvm-svn: 199398
not support as a possible reason for choosing GCC instead of Clang (and vice
versa). Weaken some of the claimed advantages of Clang in light of GCC
improvements.
llvm-svn: 196758
Use internal links to provide easier access to recent and ongoing work.
Also shift up the order of standards in the page title in order to avoid web
search results focusing on C++98 in the summary.
This is done to highlight the modern standards support in clang that was
previously languishing at the bottom of the page.
"C++98/03 is sooooo yesterday" - dgregor
llvm-svn: 196565
within their namespace, and such a redeclaration isn't required to be a
definition any more.
Update DR status page to say Clang 3.4 instead of SVN and add new Clang 3.5
category (but keep Clang 3.4 yellow for now).
llvm-svn: 196481
Richard Smith