explicit functions that are not candidates.
It's not always obvious that the reason a conversion was not possible is
because the function you wanted to call is 'explicit', so explicitly say
if that's the case.
It would be nice to rank the explicit candidates higher in the
diagnostic if an implicit conversion sequence exists for their
arguments, but unfortunately we can't determine that without potentially
triggering non-immediate-context errors that we're not permitted to
produce.
members of dependent contexts.
This permits cases where the names before and after the '::' in a
dependent inherited constructor using-declaration do not match, but
where we can nonetheless tell when parsing the template that a
constructor is being named. Under (open) core language DR 2070, such
cases will probably be ill-formed, but r335182 does not quite give
that result and didn't intend to change this, so restore the old
behavior for now.
llvm-svn: 335381
function-style cast.
This fires for cases such as
T(x);
... where 'x' was previously declared and T is a type. This construct declares
a variable named 'x' rather than the (probably expected) interpretation of a
function-style cast of 'x' to T.
llvm-svn: 314570
Printing typedefs or type aliases using clang_getTypeSpelling() is missing the
namespace they are defined in. This is in contrast to other types that always
yield the full typename including namespaces.
Patch by Michael Reiher!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29944
llvm-svn: 297465
name. If the dependent name happened to end in a template-id (X<T>::Y<U>), we
would fail to notice that the 'typename' keyword is missing when resolving it
to a type.
It turns out that GCC has a similar bug. If this shows up in much real code, we
can easily downgrade this to an ExtWarn.
llvm-svn: 293815
Under this defect resolution, the injected-class-name of a class or class
template cannot be used except in very limited circumstances (when declaring a
constructor, in a nested-name-specifier, in a base-specifier, or in an
elaborated-type-specifier). This is apparently done to make parsing easier, but
it's a pain for us since we don't know whether a template-id using the
injected-class-name is valid at the point when we annotate it (we don't yet
know whether the template-id will become part of an elaborated-type-specifier).
As a tentative resolution to a perceived language defect, mem-initializer-ids
are added to the list of exceptions here (they generally follow the same rules
as base-specifiers).
When the reference to the injected-class-name uses the 'typename' or 'template'
keywords, we permit it to be used to name a type or template as an extension;
other compilers also accept some cases in this area. There are also a couple of
corner cases with dependent template names that we do not yet diagnose, but
which will also get this treatment.
llvm-svn: 292518
Replace inheriting constructors implementation with new approach, voted into
C++ last year as a DR against C++11.
Instead of synthesizing a set of derived class constructors for each inherited
base class constructor, we make the constructors of the base class visible to
constructor lookup in the derived class, using the normal rules for
using-declarations.
For constructors, UsingShadowDecl now has a ConstructorUsingShadowDecl derived
class that tracks the requisite additional information. We create shadow
constructors (not found by name lookup) in the derived class to model the
actual initialization, and have a new expression node,
CXXInheritedCtorInitExpr, to model the initialization of a base class from such
a constructor. (This initialization is special because it performs real perfect
forwarding of arguments.)
In cases where argument forwarding is not possible (for inalloca calls,
variadic calls, and calls with callee parameter cleanup), the shadow inheriting
constructor is not emitted and instead we directly emit the initialization code
into the caller of the inherited constructor.
Note that this new model is not perfectly compatible with the old model in some
corner cases. In particular:
* if B inherits a private constructor from A, and C uses that constructor to
construct a B, then we previously required that A befriends B and B
befriends C, but the new rules require A to befriend C directly, and
* if a derived class has its own constructors (and so its implicit default
constructor is suppressed), it may still inherit a default constructor from
a base class
llvm-svn: 274049
Previously if an enumeration was used in a nested name specifier in pre-C++11
language dialect, error message was 'XXX is not a class, namespace, or scoped
enumeration'. This patch removes the word 'scoped' as in C++11 any enumeration
may be used in this context.
llvm-svn: 226410
Summary:
Naming the destructor using a typedef-name for the class-name is
well-formed.
This fixes PR19620.
Reviewers: rsmith, doug.gregor
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3583
llvm-svn: 209319
Rather than simply saying "X is not a class or namespace", clarify what
X is by providing the aka type in the case where X is a type, or
pointing to the named declaration if there's an unambiguous one to refer
to. In the ambiguous case, the ambiguities are already enumerated
(though could be clarified by describing what kind of entities they are)
Included a few FIXMEs in tests where some further improvements could be
made.
llvm-svn: 201038
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
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
- 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
Richard Smith