Clang will now accept this valid C++11 code:
struct A { int field; };
struct B : A {
using A::field;
enum { TheSize = sizeof(field) };
};
Previously we would classify the 'field' reference as something other
than a field, and then forget to apply the C++11 rule to allow
non-static data member references in unevaluated contexts.
This usually arises in class templates that want to reference fields of
a dependent base in an unevaluated context outside of an instance
method. Such contexts do not allow references to 'this', so the only way
to access the field is with a using decl and an implicit member
reference.
llvm-svn: 250839
This reverts commit r250592.
It has issues around unevaluated contexts, like this:
template <class T> struct A { T i; };
template <class T>
struct B : A<T> {
using A<T>::i;
typedef decltype(i) U;
};
template struct B<int>;
llvm-svn: 250774
During the initial template parse for this code, 'member' is unresolved
and we don't know anything about it:
struct A { int member };
template <typename T>
struct B : public T {
using T::member;
static void f() {
(void)member; // Could be static or non-static.
}
};
template class B<A>;
The pattern declaration contains an UnresolvedLookupExpr rather than an
UnresolvedMemberExpr because `f` is static, and `member` should never be
a field. However, if the code is invalid, it may become a field, in
which case we should diagnose it.
Reviewers: rjmccall, rsmith
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6700
llvm-svn: 250592
an existing using shadow declaration if they define entities of the same kind
in different namespaces.
We'd previously check this consistently if the using-declaration came after the
other declaration, but not if it came before.
llvm-svn: 241428
Previously we thought the instance member was a function, not a field,
and we'd say something silly like:
t.cpp:4:27: error: call to non-static member function without an object argument
static int f() { return n; }
^
Noticed in PR21923.
llvm-svn: 224480
declaration is not visible. Previously we didn't find hidden friend names in
this redeclaration lookup, because we forgot to treat it as a redeclaration
lookup. Conversely, we did find some local extern names, but those don't
actually conflict with a namespace-scope using declaration, because the only
conflicts we can get are scope conflicts, not conflicts due to the entities
being members of the same namespace.
llvm-svn: 206011
This solution relies on an O(n) scan of redeclarations, which means it might
scale poorly in crazy cases with tons of redeclarations brought in by a ton
of distinct associated namespaces. I believe that avoiding this
is not worth the common-case cost.
llvm-svn: 94530
address resolution. This fixes PR5751.
Also, while we're here, remove logic from ADL which mistakenly included the
definition namespaces of overloaded and/or templated functions whose name or
address is used as an argument.
llvm-svn: 92245
- 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
set, expand overloaded function declarations. Long-term, this should
actually be done by the name-lookup code rather than here, but this
part of the code (involving using declarations) is getting a makeover
now and the test-case is useful.
llvm-svn: 88846
functions that occur in multiple declaration contexts, e.g., because
some were found via using declarations. Now, isDeclInScope will build
a new overload set (when needed) containing only those declarations
that are actually in scope. This eliminates a problem found with
libstdc++'s <iostream>, where the presence of using
In the longer term, I'd like to eliminate Sema::isDeclInScope in favor
of better handling of the RedeclarationOnly flag in the name-lookup
routines. That way, name lookup only returns the entities that matter,
rather than taking the current two-pass approach of producing too many
results and then filtering our the wrong results. It's not efficient,
and I'm sure that we aren't filtering everywhere we should be.
llvm-svn: 82954
Reid Kleckner