(or of a lambda init-capture, which is sort-of such a variable). The semantics
of such constructs will change when we implement N3922, so we intend to warn on
this in Clang 3.6 then change the semantics in Clang 3.7.
llvm-svn: 228792
It is not correct to let it consume the cxx_defaultarg_end token. I'm
starting to wonder if it makes more sense to stop SkipUntil from
consuming such tokens.
llvm-svn: 225615
Recovery from malformed lambda introducers would find us consuming the
synthetic default argument token, which is bad. Instead, stop right
before that token.
llvm-svn: 225613
Sema::CheckParmsForFunctionDef can't cope with a null TypeSourceInfo.
Don't let the AST contain the malformed lambda.
This fixes PR22122.
llvm-svn: 225505
For namespaces, this is consistent with mangling and GCC's debug info
behavior. For structs, GCC uses <anonymous struct> but we prefer
consistency between all anonymous entities but don't want to confuse
them with template arguments, etc, so we'll just go with parens in all
cases.
llvm-svn: 205398
a FieldDecl from it, and propagate both into the closure type and the
LambdaExpr.
You can't do much useful with them yet -- you can't use them within the body
of the lambda, because we don't have a representation for "the this of the
lambda, not the this of the enclosing context". We also don't have support or a
representation for a nested capture of an init-capture yet, which was intended
to work despite not being allowed by the current standard wording.
llvm-svn: 181985
being defined here: [] () -> struct S {} does not define struct S.
In passing, implement DR1318 (syntactic disambiguation of 'final').
llvm-svn: 152551
designators in the parser. In the worst case, this disambiguation
requires tentative parsing just past the closing ']', but for most
cases we'll be able to tell by looking ahead just one token (without
going into the heavyweight tentative parsing machinery).
llvm-svn: 150790
diagnostic message are compared. If either is a substring of the other, then
no error is given. This gives rise to an unexpected case:
// expect-error{{candidate function has different number of parameters}}
will match the following error messages from Clang:
candidate function has different number of parameters (expected 1 but has 2)
candidate function has different number of parameters
It will also match these other error messages:
candidate function
function has different number of parameters
number of parameters
This patch will change so that the verification string must be a substring of
the diagnostic message before accepting. Also, all the failing tests from this
change have been corrected. Some stats from this cleanup:
87 - removed extra spaces around verification strings
70 - wording updates to diagnostics
40 - extra leading or trailing characters (typos, unmatched parens or quotes)
35 - diagnostic level was included (error:, warning:, or note:)
18 - flag name put in the warning (-Wprotocol)
llvm-svn: 146619
Richard Smith