* In C++11, '[[' is ill-formed unless it starts an attribute-specifier. Reject
array sizes and array indexes which begin with a lambda-expression. Recover by
parsing the lambda as a lambda.
* In Objective-C++11, either '[' could be the start of a message-send.
Fully disambiguate this case: it turns out that the grammars of message-sends,
lambdas and attributes do not actually overlap. Accept any occurrence of '[['
where either '[' starts a message send, but reject a lambda in an array index
just like in C++11 mode.
Implement a couple of changes to the attribute wording which occurred after our
attributes implementation landed:
* In a function-declaration, the attributes go after the exception specification,
not after the right paren.
* A reference type can have attributes applied.
* An 'identifier' in an attribute can also be a keyword. Support for alternative
tokens (iso646 keywords) in attributes to follow.
And some bug fixes:
* Parse attributes after declarator-ids, even if they are not simple identifiers.
* Do not accept attributes after a parenthesized declarator.
* Accept attributes after an array size in a new-type-id.
* Partially disamiguate 'delete' followed by a lambda. More work is required
here for the case where the lambda-introducer is '[]'.
llvm-svn: 154369
a type specifier and can be combined with unsigned. This allows libstdc++4.7 to
be used with clang in c++98 mode.
Several other changes are still required for libstdc++4.7 to work with clang in
c++11 mode.
llvm-svn: 153999
defined here, but not semantically, so
new struct S {};
is always ill-formed, even if there is a struct S in scope.
We also had a couple of bugs in ParseOptionalTypeSpecifier caused by it being
under-loved (due to it only being used in a few places) so merge it into
ParseDeclarationSpecifiers with a new DeclSpecContext. To avoid regressing, this
required improving ParseDeclarationSpecifiers' diagnostics in some cases. This
also required teaching ParseSpecifierQualifierList about constexpr... which
incidentally fixes an issue where we'd allow the constexpr specifier in other
bad places.
llvm-svn: 152549
for a few kinds of error. Specifically:
Since we're after translation phase 6, the "" token might be formed by multiple
source-level string literals. Checking the token width is not a correct way of
detecting empty string literals, due to escaped newlines. Diagnose and recover
from a missing space between "" and suffix, and from string literals other than
"", which are followed by a suffix.
llvm-svn: 152348
grammar requires a string-literal and not a user-defined-string-literal. The
two constructs are still represented by the same TokenKind, in order to prevent
a combinatorial explosion of different kinds of token. A flag on Token tracks
whether a ud-suffix is present, in order to prevent clients from needing to look
at the token's spelling.
llvm-svn: 152098
that provides the behavior of the C++11 library trait
std::is_trivially_constructible<T, Args...>, which can't be
implemented purely as a library.
Since __is_trivially_constructible can have zero or more arguments, I
needed to add Yet Another Type Trait Expression Class, this one
handling arbitrary arguments. The next step will be to migrate
UnaryTypeTrait and BinaryTypeTrait over to this new, more general
TypeTrait class.
Fixes the Clang side of <rdar://problem/10895483> / PR12038.
llvm-svn: 151352
that 'this' can be used in the brace-or-equal-initializer of a
non-static data member, and C++11 [expr.prim.lambda]p9, which says
that lambda expressions not in block scope can have no captures, side
fully with C++11 [expr.prim.general]p4 by allowing 'this' to be
captured within these initializers. This seems to be the intent of
non-static data member initializers.
llvm-svn: 151101
name mangling in the Itanium C++ ABI for lambda expressions is so
dependent on context, we encode the number used to encode each lambda
as part of the lambda closure type, and maintain this value within
Sema.
Note that there are a several pieces still missing:
- We still get the linkage of lambda expressions wrong
- We aren't properly numbering or mangling lambda expressions that
occur in default function arguments or in data member initializers.
- We aren't (de-)serializing the lambda numbering tables
llvm-svn: 150982
loop and switch statements, by teaching Scope that a function scope never has
a continue/break parent for the purposes of control flow. Remove the hack in
block and lambda expressions which worked around this by pretending that such
expressions were continue/break scopes.
Remove Scope::ControlParent, since it's unused.
In passing, teach default statements to recover properly from a missing ';', and
add a fixit for same to both default and case labels (the latter already
recovered correctly).
llvm-svn: 150776
Holding the constructor directly makes no sense when list-initialized arrays come into play. The constructor is now held in a CXXConstructExpr, if construction is what is done. The new design can also distinguish properly between list-initialization and direct-initialization, as well as implicit default-initialization constructors and explicit value-initialization constructors. Finally, doing it this way removes redundance from the AST because CXXNewExpr doesn't try to handle both the allocation and the initialization responsibilities.
This breaks the static analysis of new expressions. I've filed PR12014 to track this.
llvm-svn: 150682
default is '=', and reword the warning about explicitly capturing
'this' in such lambdas to indicate that only explicit capture is
banned.
Introduce Fix-Its for this and other "save the programmer from
themself" rules regarding what can be explicitly captured and what
must be implicitly captured.
llvm-svn: 150256
Pass a typo correction callback object from ParseCastExpr to
Sema::ActOnIdExpression to be a bit more selective about what kinds of
corrections will be allowed for unknown identifiers.
llvm-svn: 148973
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
Richard Smith