A constructor for an abstract class does not call constructors for virtual
base classes, so it is not an error if no initializer is present for the
virtual base and the virtual base cannot be default initialized.
Also provide a (disabled by default, for now) warning for the case where a
virtual base class's initializer is ignored in an abstract class's constructor,
and address a defect in DR257 where it was not carried through to C++11's rules
for implicit deletion of special member functions.
Based on a patch by Maurice Bos.
llvm-svn: 186803
which in a fit of zeal wanted to walk the entire translation unit,
and replace it with a new checker that walks the types of declarations
nested within the class. Also, look into templates when doing this.
llvm-svn: 111357
we were relying on checking for abstract class types when an array
type was actually used to declare a variable, parameter, etc. However,
we need to check when the construct the array for, e.g., SFINAE
purposes (see DR337). Fixes problems with Boost's is_abstract type
trait.
llvm-svn: 102452
- 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
class C {
void g(C c);
virtual void f() = 0;
};
In this case, C is not known to be abstract when doing semantic analysis on g. This is done by recursively traversing the abstract class and checking the types of member functions.
llvm-svn: 67594
David Majnemer