This only applies if the type has a name. (we could potentially do something
crazy with decltype in C++11 to qualify members of unnamed types but that
seems excessive)
It might be nice to also suggest a fixit for "&this->i", "&foo->i",
and "&foo.i" but those expressions produce 'bound' member functions that have
a different AST representation & make error recovery a little trickier. Left
as future work.
llvm-svn: 165763
warning to an error. C++ bans it, and both GCC and EDG diagnose it as
an error. Microsoft allows it, so we still warn in Microsoft
mode. Fixes <rdar://problem/11135644>.
llvm-svn: 163831
also deal with '>>>' (in CUDA), '>=', and '>>='. Fix the FixItHints logic to
deal with cases where the token is followed by an adjacent '=', '==', '>=',
'>>=', or '>>>' token, where a naive fix-it would result in a differing token
stream on a re-lex.
llvm-svn: 158652
This is mainly for attempting to recover in cases where a class provides
a custom operator-> and a '.' was accidentally used instead of '->' when
accessing a member of the object returned by the current object's
operator->.
llvm-svn: 155580
followed by an identifier as declaration specificer (except for ObjC).
This allows e.g. an out-of-line C++ member function definitions to be
recognized as functions and not as variable declarations if the type
name for the first parameter is not recognized as a type--say, when there
is a function name shadowing an enum type name and the parameter is
missing the "enum" keyword needed to distinguish the two.
Note that returning TPResult::Error() instead of TPResult::True()
appears to have the same end result, while TPResult::Ambiguous()
results in a crash.
llvm-svn: 155163
Based on Doug's feedback to r153887 this omits the FixIt if the following token
isn't syntactically valid for the context. (not a comma, '...', identifier,
'>', or '>>')
There's a bunch of work to handle the '>>' case, but it makes for a much more
pleasant diagnostic in this case.
llvm-svn: 154163
The diagnostic message correctly informs the user that they have omitted the
'class' keyword, but neither suggests this insertion as a fixit, nor attempts
to recover as if they had provided the keyword.
This fixes the recovery, adds the fixit, and adds a separate diagnostic and
corresponding replacement fixit for cases where the user wrote 'struct' or
'typename' instead of 'class' (suggested by Richard Smith as a possible common
mistake).
I'm not sure the diagnostic message for either the original or new cases feel
very Clang-esque, so I'm open to suggestions there. The fixit hints make it
fairly easy to see what's required, though.
llvm-svn: 153887
o Correct the handling of the restrictions on usage of cv-qualified and
ref-qualified function types.
o Fix a bug where such types were rejected in template type parameter default
arguments, due to such arguments not being treated as a template type arg
context.
o Remove the ExtWarn for usage of such types as template arguments; that was
a standard defect, not a GCC extension.
o Improve the wording and unify the code for diagnosing cv-qualifiers with the
code for diagnosing ref-qualifiers.
llvm-svn: 150244
Old error:
plusequaldeclare1.cc:3:8: error: expected ';' at end of declaration
int x += 6;
^
;
New error:
plusequaldeclare1.cc:3:9: error: invalid '+=' at end of declaration; did you
mean '='?
int x += 6;
^~
=
llvm-svn: 148433
declaration tickles a bug in the way we handle visibility pragmas.
The improvement to error recovery for template function definitions declared
with the 'typedef' specifier in r145372 is unrelated and not reverted here.
llvm-svn: 145541
declaration at namespace scope is followed by a semicolon and an open-brace
(or in C++, a 'try', ':' or '='), then the error is probably a function
definition with a spurious ';', rather than a mysterious '{'.
llvm-svn: 145372
instead of a semicolon (as sometimes happens during refactorings). When such a
comma is seen at the end of a line, and is followed by something which can't
possibly be a declarator (or even something which might be a plausible typo for
a declarator), suggest that a semicolon was intended.
llvm-svn: 142544
RUN: foo
RUN: bar || true
is equivalent to:
RUN: foo && bar || true
which is equivalent to:
RUN: (foo && bar) || true
This resulted in several of the fixit tests not really testing anything.
llvm-svn: 139132
that was present in a prior declaration, emit a warning rather than a
hard error (which we did before, and still do with mismatched
exception specifications). Moreover, provide a fix-it hint with the
throw() clause that should be added, e.g.,
t.C:10:7: warning: 'operator new' is missing exception specification
'throw(std::bad_alloc)'
void *operator new(unsigned long sz)
^
throw(std::bad_alloc)
As part of this, disable the warning when we're missing an exception
specification on operator new, operator new[], operator delete, or
operator delete[] when exceptions are turned off (-fno-exceptions).
Fixes PR5957.
llvm-svn: 99388
- This is designed to make it obvious that %clang_cc1 is a "test variable"
which is substituted. It is '%clang_cc1' instead of '%clang -cc1' because it
can be useful to redefine what gets run as 'clang -cc1' (for example, to set
a default target).
llvm-svn: 91446
David Blaikie