initializers.
This has some interesting interactions with our existing extensions to
support C99 designated initializers as an extension in C++. Those are
resolved as follows:
* We continue to permit the full breadth of C99 designated initializers
in C++, with the exception that we disallow a partial overwrite of an
initializer with a non-trivially-destructible type. (Full overwrite
is OK, because we won't run the first initializer at all.)
* The C99 extensions are disallowed in SFINAE contexts and during
overload resolution, where they could change the meaning of valid
programs.
* C++20 disallows reordering of initializers. We only check for that for
the simple cases that the C++20 rules permit (designators of the form
'.field_name =' and continue to allow reordering in other cases).
It would be nice to improve this behavior in future.
* All C99 designated initializer extensions produce a warning by
default in C++20 mode. People are going to learn the C++ rules based
on what Clang diagnoses, so it's important we diagnose these properly
by default.
* In C++ <= 17, we apply the C++20 rules rather than the C99 rules, and
so still diagnose C99 extensions as described above. We continue to
accept designated C++20-compatible initializers in C++ <= 17 silently
by default (but naturally still reject under -pedantic-errors).
This is not a complete implementation of P0329R4. In particular, that
paper introduces new non-C99-compatible syntax { .field { init } }, and
we do not support that yet.
This is based on a previous patch by Don Hinton, though I've made
substantial changes when addressing the above interactions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59754
llvm-svn: 370544
CheckDesignatedInitializer wasn't taking into account the base classes
when computing the index for the field in the derived class, which
caused the test case to crash during IRGen because of a malformed AST.
rdar://problem/26795040
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28705
llvm-svn: 292245
Richard Smith