access expression is the start of a template-id, ignore function
templates found in the context of the entire postfix-expression. Fixes
PR11856.
llvm-svn: 152520
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
a member template, e.g.,
x.f<int>
if we have found a template in the type of x, but the lookup in the
current scope is ambiguous, just ignore the lookup in the current
scope. Fixes <rdar://problem/9915664>.
llvm-svn: 137255
vector<int>
to
std::vector<int>
Patch by Kaelyn Uhrain, with minor tweaks + PCH support from me. Fixes
PR5776/<rdar://problem/8652971>.
Thanks Kaelyn!
llvm-svn: 134007
should use a constructor to default-initialize a
variable. InitializationSequence knows the rules for default
initialization, better. Fixes <rdar://problem/8501008>.
llvm-svn: 131796
a member template, and you try to call the member template with an explicit
template argument. See PR7247
For example, this downgrades the error to a warning in:
template<typename T> struct set{};
struct Value {
template<typename T>
void set(T value) {
}
};
void foo() {
Value v;
v.set<double>(3.2); // Warning here.
}
llvm-svn: 105518
the x86-64 __va_list_tag with this attribute. The attribute causes the
affected type to behave like a fundamental type when considered by ADL.
(x86-64 is the only target we currently provide with a struct-based
__builtin_va_list)
Fixes PR6762.
llvm-svn: 104941
way that C does. Among other differences, elaborated type specifiers
are defined to skip "non-types", which, as you might imagine, does not
include typedefs. Rework our use of IDNS masks to capture the semantics
of different kinds of declarations better, and remove most current lookup
filters. Removing the last remaining filter is more complicated and will
happen in a separate patch.
Fixes PR 6885 as well some spectrum of unfiled bugs.
llvm-svn: 102164
method parameter, provide a note pointing at the parameter itself so
the user does not have to manually look for the function/method being
called and match up parameters to arguments. For example, we now get:
t.c:4:5: warning: incompatible pointer types passing 'long *' to
parameter of
type 'int *' [-pedantic]
f(long_ptr);
^~~~~~~~
t.c:1:13: note: passing argument to parameter 'x' here
void f(int *x);
^
llvm-svn: 102038
parameter, explicitly ask the user to give it arguments. We used to
complain that it wasn't a type and expect the user to figure it out.
llvm-svn: 100729
therefore not creating ElaboratedTypes, which are still pretty-printed
with the written tag).
Most of these testcase changes were done by script, so don't feel too
sorry for my fingers.
llvm-svn: 98149
C++98/03 and C++0x, since the '0x semantics break valid C++98/03
code. This new mess is tracked by core issue 399, which is still
unresolved.
Fixes PR6358 and PR6359.
llvm-svn: 96836
that name constructors, the endless joys of out-of-line constructor
definitions, and various other corner cases that the previous hack
never imagined. Fixes PR5688 and tightens up semantic analysis for
constructor names.
Additionally, fixed a problem where we wouldn't properly enter the
declarator scope of a parenthesized declarator. We were entering the
scope, then leaving it when we saw the ")"; now, we re-enter the
declarator scope before parsing the parameter list.
Note that we are forced to perform some tentative parsing within a
class (call it C) to tell the difference between
C(int); // constructor
and
C (f)(int); // member function
which is rather unfortunate. And, although it isn't necessary for
correctness, we use the same tentative-parsing mechanism for
out-of-line constructors to improve diagnostics in icky cases like:
C::C C::f(int); // error: C::C refers to the constructor name, but
// we complain nicely and recover by treating it as
// a type.
llvm-svn: 93322
Because of the rules of base-class lookup* and the restrictions on typedefs, it
was actually impossible for this to cause any problems more serious than the
spurious acceptance of
template <class T> class A : B<A> { ... };
instead of
template <class T> class A : B<A<T> > { ... };
but I'm sure we can all agree that that is a very important restriction which
is well worth making another Parser->Sema call for.
(*) n.b. clang++ does not implement these rules correctly; we are not ignoring
non-type names
llvm-svn: 91792
Clang reasonably adds all the base specifiers in one pass; this is now required
for correctness to prevent lookup from going mad. But this has the advantage of
establishing the correct context when looking up base specifiers, which will be
important for access control.
llvm-svn: 91791
Magically fixes all the terrible lookup problems associated with not pushing
a new scope. Resolves an ancient xfail and an LLVM misparse.
llvm-svn: 91769
used as expressions). In dependent contexts, try to recover by doing a lookup
in previously-dependent base classes. We get better diagnostics out, but
unfortunately the recovery fails: we need to turn it into a method call
expression, not a bare call expression. Thus this is still a WIP.
llvm-svn: 91525
- 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
from its location. Initialize appropriately.
When implicitly creating a declaration of a class template specialization
after encountering the first reference to it, use the pattern class's
location instead of the location of the first reference.
llvm-svn: 81515
FriendFunctionDecl, and create instances as appropriate.
The design of FriendFunctionDecl is still somewhat up in the air; you can
befriend arbitrary types of functions --- methods, constructors, etc. ---
and it's not clear that this representation captures that very well.
We'll have a better picture when we start consuming this data in access
control.
llvm-svn: 78653
John McCall