Introduce a new AST Decl node "EmptyDecl" to model empty-declaration. Have attributes from attribute-declaration appertain
to the EmptyDecl node by creating the AST representations of these attributes and attach them to the EmptyDecl node so these
attributes can be sema checked just as attributes attached to "normal" declarations.
llvm-svn: 175900
to control the check for the C 5.2.4.1 / C++ [implimits] restriction on nesting
levels for parentheses, brackets and braces.
Some code with heavy macro use exceeds the default limit of 256, but we don't
want to increase it generally to avoid stack overflow on stack-constrained
systems.
llvm-svn: 175855
which allows grouping parens in an abstract-pack-declarator. This was already
mostly implemented, but missed some cases. Add an ExtWarn for use of this
extension until CWG ratifies it.
llvm-svn: 175660
attributes yet, so just issue the appropriate diagnostics. Also generalize the
fixit for attributes-in-the-wrong-place code and reuse it here, if attributes
are placed after the access-specifier or 'virtual' in a base specifier.
llvm-svn: 175575
MSVC accepts this:
class A {
A::A();
};
Clang accepts regular member functions with extra qualification as an MS
extension, but not constructors. This changes the parser to defer rejecting
qualified constructors so that the same Sema logic can apply to constructors as
regular member functions. This also improves the error message when MS
extensions are disabled (in my opinion). Before it was:
/Users/jason/Desktop/test.cpp:2:8: error: expected member name or ';' after declaration specifiers
A::A();
~~~~ ^
1 error generated.
After:
/Users/jason/Desktop/test.cpp:2:6: error: extra qualification on member 'A'
A::A();
~~~^
1 error generated.
Patch by Jason Haslam.
llvm-svn: 174980
If the member has an initializer, assume it was probably intended to be static
and suggest/recover with that.
If the member doesn't have an initializer, assume it was probably intended to
be const instead of constexpr and suggest that.
(if the attempt to apply these changes fails, don't make any suggestion &
produce the same diagnostic experience as before. The only case where this can
come up that I know of is with a mutable constexpr with an initializer, since
mutable is incompatible with static (but it's already incompatible with
const anyway))
llvm-svn: 173873
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
as a keyword. Rationalize existing attributes to use it as appropriate, and to
not lie about some __declspec attributes being GNU attributes. In passing,
remove a gross hack which was discarding attributes which we could handle. This
results in us actually respecting the __pascal keyword again.
llvm-svn: 173746
This required plumbing through a new flag to determine whether a ParmVarDecl is
actually a parameter of a function declaration (as opposed to a function
typedef etc, where the attribute is prohibited). Weirdly, this attribute (just
like [[noreturn]]) cannot be applied to a function type, just to a function
declaration (and its parameters).
llvm-svn: 173726
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
ActOnFinishFullExpr that some of its checks only apply to discarded-value
expressions. This adds missing checks for unexpanded variadic template
parameter packs to a handful of constructs.
llvm-svn: 172485
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
Michael Han