Richard Smith 7bdcc4a9da Disambiguation of '[[': ... * 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		2012-04-10 01:32:12 +00:00
clang	Disambiguation of '[[':	2012-04-10 01:32:12 +00:00
compiler-rt	[ASan] remove dispatch.h header once again - it's not present on Leopard, and we don't want to break the build of compiler-rt there. See https://trac.macports.org/ticket/33362	2012-04-09 16:45:18 +00:00
debuginfo-tests	Revert previous patch as the corresponding clang patch was reverted.	2012-01-26 07:01:33 +00:00
libclc	Switch to BSD/MIT dual license.	2012-02-22 04:47:39 +00:00
libcxx	Fix the remaining atomic tests, all of which were wrong for the case where a	2012-04-05 13:48:16 +00:00
libcxxabi	I would really like to write the handlers in terms of C++11 atomics. This would give us the best performance, portablity, and safety tradeoff. Unfortunately I can not yet do that. So I've put the desired code in comments, and reverted the handler getters to the slower but safer legacy atomic intrinsics.	2012-03-19 16:56:51 +00:00
lld	Remove definedAtomsBegin() and co. so that C++11 range based for loops can be used	2012-04-09 00:58:21 +00:00
lldb	Two changes,	2012-04-10 01:21:57 +00:00
llvm	Don't try to zExt just to check if an integer constant is zero, it might	2012-04-10 00:16:22 +00:00
polly	Fix typos.	2012-04-09 19:46:05 +00:00