designator" diagnostic with more correct and more human-friendly "cannot take
address of rvalue of type 'T'".
For the case of & &T::f, provide a custom diagnostic, rather than unhelpfully
saying "cannot take address of rvalue of type '<overloaded function type>'".
For the case of &array_temporary, treat it just like a class temporary
(including allowing it as an extension); the existing diagnostic wording
for the class temporary case works fine.
llvm-svn: 174262
the diagnostic's warn_ name. Switch some places (notably C++11 attributes)
which really wanted an error over to a different diagnostic. Finally, suppress
the diagnostic entirely for __ptr32, __ptr64 and __w64, to avoid producing
diagnostics in important system headers.
llvm-svn: 173788
It turns out that there's no correctness bug here (because we can't have a type
definition in this location), but there was a diagnostic bug.
llvm-svn: 173766
on a type. Currently, it gives a generic "expected unqualified-id" error.
The new error message is "cannot use (dot|arrow) operator on a type".
llvm-svn: 173556
r159549 / r159164 regressed clang to reject
struct s {};
struct s
operator++(struct s a)
{ return a; }
This fixes the regression. Richard, pleas check if this looks right.
llvm-svn: 172834
it apart from [[gnu::noreturn]] / __attribute__((noreturn)), since their
semantics are not equivalent (for instance, we treat [[gnu::noreturn]] as
affecting the function type, whereas [[noreturn]] does not).
llvm-svn: 172691
with function definitions.
We really should remove Parser::isDeclarationAfterDeclarator entirely, since
it's meaningless in C++11 (an open brace could be either a function definition
or an initializer, which is what it's trying to differentiate between). The
other caller of it happens to be correct right now...
llvm-svn: 172510
attributes appertain to a declaration, even though they would be much more
naturally modelled as appertaining to a function type. Previously, we would
try to distribute them from the declarator to the function type, then
reject them for being at an incorrect location. Now, we just distribute them
as far as the declarator; the existing attribute handling code can actually
apply them there just fine.
llvm-svn: 172504
1) Supported by Clang, and
2) Supported by GCC, and
3) Documented in GCC's manual.
g++ allows its C++11-style attributes to appertain only to the entity being
declared, and never to a type (even for a type attribute), so we do the same.
llvm-svn: 172382
Following r168626, in class declaration or definition, there are a combination of syntactic locations
where C++11 attributes could appear, and among those the only valid location permitted by standard is
between class-key and class-name. So for those attributes appear at wrong locations, fixit is used to
move them to expected location and we recover by applying them to the class specifier.
llvm-svn: 171757
C++11 allowed writing "vector<vector<int>>" without a space between the two ">".
This change allows this for protocols in template lists too in -std=c++11 mode,
and improves the diagnostic in c++98 mode.
llvm-svn: 170223
Our error recovery path may have made the class anonymous, and that has a pretty
disastrous impact on any attempt to parse a class body containing constructors.
llvm-svn: 169374
This change list implemented logic that explicitly detects several combinations of locations where C++11 attribute
specifiers might be incorrectly placed within a class specifier. Previously we emit generic diagnostics like
"expected identifier" for such cases; now we emit specific diagnostic against the misplaced attributes, this also
fixed a bug in old code where attributes appear at legitimate locations were incorrectly rejected.
Thanks to Richard Smith for reviewing!
llvm-svn: 168626
We don't support any C++11 attributes that appertain to declaration specifiers so reject
the attributes in parser until we support them; this also conforms to what g++ 4.8 is doing.
llvm-svn: 167481
Richard Smith