This improves the conversion diagnostics (by correctly pointing to the loop
construct for conversions that may've been caused by the contextual conversion
to bool caused by a condition expression) and also causes the NULL conversion
warnings to be correctly suppressed when crossing a macro boundary in such a
context. (previously, since the conversion context location was incorrect, the
suppression could not be performed)
Reported by Nico Weber as feedback to r156826.
llvm-svn: 156901
to use the @() boxing syntax.
It will also rewrite uses of stringWithCString:encoding: where the encoding that is
used is NSASCIIStringEncoding or NSUTF8StringEncoding.
rdar://11438360
llvm-svn: 156868
This fixes the included test case & was reported by Nico Weber.
It's a little bit nasty using the difference in the conversion context, but
seems to me like a not unreasonable solution. I did have to fix up the
conversion context for conditional operators (it seems correct to me to include
the context for which we're actually doing the comparison - across all the
nested conditionals, rather than the innermost conditional which might not
actually have the problematic implicit conversion at all) and template default
arguments (this is a bit of a hack, since we don't have the source location of
the '=' anymore, so I just used the start of the parameter - open to
suggestions there)
llvm-svn: 156861
and the thing we have has a scope specifier, and we're in a context that doesn't
allow declaring a qualified name, then the error is a malformed type, not a
missing type.
llvm-svn: 156856
There are some caveats:
-If an implicit cast (e.g. int -> float for numberWithFloat:) was required, the message
will not get rewritten
-If the message was with numberWithInteger:/numberWithUnsignedInteger:, which are very
commonly used, be more liberal and allow the boxing syntax if the underlying type has
same signedness and will not lose precision.
Part of rdar://11438360
llvm-svn: 156844
Previously we would reject it as illegal using a value of
enum type and on ObjC++ it was illegal to use an enumerator
as well.
rdar://11454917
llvm-svn: 156843
Moves the bool bail-out down a little in SemaChecking - so now
-Wnull-conversion and -Wliteral-conversion can fire when the target type is
bool.
Also improve the wording/details in the -Wliteral-conversion warning to match
the -Wconstant-conversion.
llvm-svn: 156826
* Don't copy the visibility attribute during instantiations. We have to be able
to distinguish
struct HIDDEN foo {};
template<class T>
DEFAULT void bar() {}
template DEFAULT void bar<foo>();
from
struct HIDDEN foo {};
template<class T>
DEFAULT void bar() {}
template void bar<foo>();
* If an instantiation has an attribute, it takes precedence over an attribute
in the template.
* With instantiation attributes handled with the above logic, we can now
select the minimum visibility when looking at template arguments.
llvm-svn: 156821
into one. These were all performing almost identical checks, with different bugs
in each of them.
This fixes PR12806 (we weren't setting the exception specification for an
explicitly-defaulted, non-user-provided default constructor) and enforces
8.4.2/2's rule that an in-class defaulted member must exactly match the implicit
parameter type.
llvm-svn: 156802
it is placed in a position which is never ambiguous with a
reference-to-function type. This follows some recent discussion
and ensuing proposal on cxx-abi-dev. It is not necessary to
change the mangling of CV-qualifiers because you cannot
apply CV-qualification in the normal sense to a function type.
It is not necessary to change the mangling of ref-qualifiers on
method declarations because they appear in an unambiguous
location.
In addition, mangle CV-qualifiers and ref-qualifiers on function
types when they occur in positions other than member pointers
(that is, when they appear as template arguments).
This is a minor ABI break with previous releases of clang. It
is not considered critical because (1) ref-qualifiers are
relatively rare, since AFAIK we're the only implementing compiler,
and (2) they're particularly likely to come up in contexts that
do not rely on the ODR for correctness. We apologize for any
inconvenience; this is the right thing to do.
llvm-svn: 156794
Benjamin Kramer