complete. However, if it returns a reference type, don't require the
type it refers to to be complete. Fixes <rdar://problem/8807070>.
llvm-svn: 123214
verify that we aren't in a message-send expression before digging into
the identifier or looking ahead more tokens. Fixes a regression
(<rdar://problem/8483253>) I introduced with bracket insertion.
llvm-svn: 114968
disambiguation keywords outside of templates in C++98/03. Previously,
the warning would fire when the associated nested-name-specifier was
not dependent, but that was a misreading of the C++98/03 standard:
now, we complain only when we're outside of any template.
llvm-svn: 106161
method parameter, provide a note pointing at the parameter itself so
the user does not have to manually look for the function/method being
called and match up parameters to arguments. For example, we now get:
t.c:4:5: warning: incompatible pointer types passing 'long *' to
parameter of
type 'int *' [-pedantic]
f(long_ptr);
^~~~~~~~
t.c:1:13: note: passing argument to parameter 'x' here
void f(int *x);
^
llvm-svn: 102038
during message sends) over to the new initialization code and away
from the C-only CheckSingleAssignmentConstraints. The enables the use
of C++ types in method parameters and message arguments, as well as
unifying more initialiation code overall.
llvm-svn: 102035
Objective-C++ have a more complex grammar than in Objective-C
(surprise!), because
(1) The receiver of an instance message can be a qualified name such
as ::I or identity<I>::type.
(2) Expressions in C++ can start with a type.
The receiver grammar isn't actually ambiguous; it just takes a bit of
work to parse past the type before deciding whether we have a type or
expression. We do this in two places within the grammar: once for
message sends and once when we're determining whether a []'d clause in
an initializer list is a message send or a C99 designated initializer.
This implementation of Objective-C++ message sends contains one known
extension beyond GCC's implementation, which is to permit a
typename-specifier as the receiver type for a class message, e.g.,
[typename compute_receiver_type<T>::type method];
Note that the same effect can be achieved in GCC by way of a typedef,
e.g.,
typedef typename computed_receiver_type<T>::type Computed;
[Computed method];
so this is merely a convenience.
Note also that message sends still cannot involve dependent types or
values.
llvm-svn: 102031
sends. Major changes include:
- Expanded the interface from two actions (ActOnInstanceMessage,
ActOnClassMessage), where ActOnClassMessage also handled sends to
"super" by checking whether the identifier was "super", to three
actions (ActOnInstanceMessage, ActOnClassMessage,
ActOnSuperMessage). Code completion has the same changes.
- The parser now resolves the type to which we are sending a class
message, so ActOnClassMessage now accepts a TypeTy* (rather than
an IdentifierInfo *). This opens the door to more interesting
types (for Objective-C++ support).
- Split ActOnInstanceMessage and ActOnClassMessage into parser
action functions (with their original names) and semantic
functions (BuildInstanceMessage and BuildClassMessage,
respectively). At present, this split is onyl used by
ActOnSuperMessage, which decides which kind of super message it
has and forwards to the appropriate Build*Message. In the future,
Build*Message will be used by template instantiation.
- Use getObjCMessageKind() within the disambiguation of Objective-C
message sends vs. array designators.
Two notes about substandard bits in this patch:
- There is some redundancy in the code in ParseObjCMessageExpr and
ParseInitializerWithPotentialDesignator; this will be addressed
shortly by centralizing the mapping from identifiers to type names
for the message receiver.
- There is some #if 0'd code that won't likely ever be used---it
handles the use of 'super' in methods whose class does not have a
superclass---but could be used to model GCC's behavior more
closely. This code will die in my next check-in, but I want it in
Subversion.
llvm-svn: 102021
from an instance method. Previously, we were following the Objective-C
name lookup rules for ivars, which are of course completely different
from and incompatible with the Objective-C++ rules.
For the record, the Objective-C++ rules are the sane ones.
This is another part of <rdar://problem/7660386>.
llvm-svn: 96677
Douglas Gregor