attributes in more places where we didn't and catching a lot more issues.
This implements nearly every aspect of C++11 attribute parsing, except for:
- Attributes are permitted on explicit instantiations inside the declarator
(but not preceding the decl-spec)
- Attributes are permitted on friend declarations of functions.
- Multiple instances of the same attribute in an attribute-list (e.g.
[[noreturn, noreturn]], not [[noreturn]] [[noreturn]] which is conforming)
are allowed.
The first two are marked as expected-FIXME in the test file and the latter
is probably a defect and is currently untested.
Thanks to Richard Smith for providing the lion's share of the testcases.
llvm-svn: 159072
Specifically, improve the handling of whitespace, stop saving tokens that are
in comments and fix the case where we have a comment followed by a closing brace
on the next line.
Unfortunately, there's no easy way of testing this code.
llvm-svn: 158367
This improves the conversion diagnostics (by correctly pointing to the loop
construct for conversions that may've been caused by the contextual conversion
to bool caused by a condition expression) and also causes the NULL conversion
warnings to be correctly suppressed when crossing a macro boundary in such a
context. (previously, since the conversion context location was incorrect, the
suppression could not be performed)
Reported by Nico Weber as feedback to r156826.
llvm-svn: 156901
t.c:3:9: error: expected expression
if (x)) {
^
.. which isn't even true - a statement or expression is fine. After:
t.c:3:9: error: extraneous ')' after condition, expected a statement
if (x)) {
^
This is the second part of PR12595
llvm-svn: 155762
us to improve this diagnostic (telling us to insert another ")":
t.c:2:19: error: expected ';' at end of declaration
int x = 4+(5-12));
^
;
to:
t.c:2:19: error: extraneous ')' before ';'
int x = 4+(5-12));
^
...telling us to remove the ")". This is PR12595. There are more uses of ExpectAndConsumeSemi
that could be switched over, but I don't hit them on a daily basis :)
llvm-svn: 155759
attached. Since we do not support any attributes which appertain to a statement
(yet), testing of this is necessarily quite minimal.
Patch by Alexander Kornienko!
llvm-svn: 154723
* 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
grammar requires a string-literal and not a user-defined-string-literal. The
two constructs are still represented by the same TokenKind, in order to prevent
a combinatorial explosion of different kinds of token. A flag on Token tracks
whether a ud-suffix is present, in order to prevent clients from needing to look
at the token's spelling.
llvm-svn: 152098
(Hopefully, common usage of these pragmas isn't irregular enough to break our current handling. Doug has ideas for a more crazy approach if necessary.)
llvm-svn: 151307
loop and switch statements, by teaching Scope that a function scope never has
a continue/break parent for the purposes of control flow. Remove the hack in
block and lambda expressions which worked around this by pretending that such
expressions were continue/break scopes.
Remove Scope::ControlParent, since it's unused.
In passing, teach default statements to recover properly from a missing ';', and
add a fixit for same to both default and case labels (the latter already
recovered correctly).
llvm-svn: 150776
* if, switch, range-based for: warn if semicolon is on the same line.
* for, while: warn if semicolon is on the same line and either next
statement is compound statement or next statement has more
indentation.
Replacing the semicolon with {} or moving the semicolon to the next
line will always silence the warning.
Tests from SemaCXX/if-empty-body.cpp merged into SemaCXX/warn-empty-body.cpp.
llvm-svn: 150515
statements. As noted in the documentation for the AST node, the
semantics of __if_exists/__if_not_exists are somewhat different from
the way Visual C++ implements them, because our parsed-template
representation can't accommodate VC++ semantics without serious
contortions. Hopefully this implementation is "good enough".
llvm-svn: 142901
analysis to separate dependent names from non-dependent names. For
dependent names, we'll behave differently from Visual C++:
- For __if_exists/__if_not_exists at class scope, we'll just warn
and then ignore them.
- For __if_exists/__if_not_exists in statements, we'll treat the
inner statement as a compound statement, which we only instantiate
in templates where the dependent name (after instantiation)
exists. This behavior is different from VC++, but it's as close as
we can get without encroaching ridiculousness.
The latter part (dependent statements) is not yet implemented.
llvm-svn: 142864
For instance:
template <class T> void E() {};
class F {};
void test() {
::E<::F>();
E<::F>();
}
Gives the following error messages:
error: found '<::' after a template name which forms the
digraph '<:' (aka '[') and a ':', did you mean '< ::'?
::E<::F>();
^~~
< ::
error: expected expression
E<::F>();
^
error: expected ']'
note: to match this '['
E<::F>();
This patch adds the digraph fix-it check right before the name lookup,
moves the shared checking code to a new function, and adds new
tests to catch future regressions.
llvm-svn: 140039
ctor-initializer, remember to call the Sema action to generate default
ctor-initializers. What a delightful little miscompile. Fixes PR10578
/ <rdar://problem/9877267>.
llvm-svn: 139253
Previously we would cut off the source file buffer at the code-completion
point; this impeded code-completion inside C++ inline methods and,
recently, with buffering ObjC methods.
Have the code-completion inserted into the source buffer so that it can
be buffered along with a method body. When we actually hit the code-completion
point the cut-off lexing or parsing.
Fixes rdar://10056932&8319466
llvm-svn: 139086
for-in statements; specifically, make sure to close over any
temporaries or cleanups it might require. In ARC, this has
implications for the lifetime of the collection, so emit it
with a retain and release it upon exit from the loop.
rdar://problem/9817306
llvm-svn: 136204
variants to 'expand'. This changed a couple of public APIs, including
one public type "MacroInstantiation" which is now "MacroExpansion". The
rest of the codebase was updated to reflect this, especially the
libclang code. Two of the C++ (and thus easily changed) libclang APIs
were updated as well because they pertained directly to the old
MacroInstantiation class.
No functionality changed.
llvm-svn: 135139
throw-expressions, such that we don't consider the NRVO when the
non-volatile automatic object comes from outside the innermost try
scope (C++0x [class.copymove]p13). In C++98/03, our ASTs were
incorrect but it didn't matter because IR generation doesn't actually
apply the NRVO here. In C++0x, however, we were moving from an object
when in fact we should have copied from it. Fixes PR10142 /
<rdar://problem/9714312>.
llvm-svn: 134548
- Move the diagnostic to the case statement instead of at the end of the switch
- Add a fix-it hint as to how to fix the compilation error
llvm-svn: 132903
Allow to include or exclude code depending on if a symbol exists or not. Just like a #ifdef but for C/C++ symbols.
More doc: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/x7wy9xh3(v=VS.100).aspx
Support at class and namespace scopes will be added later.
llvm-svn: 131014
Alexis Hunt