When adding the implicit compound statement (required for Codegen?), the
end location was previously overridden by the start location, probably
based on the assumptions:
* The location of the compound statement should be the member's location
* The compound statement if present is the last element of a FunctionDecl
This patch changes the location of the compound statement to the
member's end location.
Code review: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4175
llvm-svn: 211344
The compilation pipeline doesn't actually need to know about the high-level
concept of diagnostic mappings, and hiding the final computed level presents
several simplifications and other potential benefits.
The only exceptions are opportunistic checks to see whether expensive code
paths can be avoided for diagnostics that are guaranteed to be ignored at a
certain SourceLocation.
This commit formalizes that invariant by introducing and using
DiagnosticsEngine::isIgnored() in place of individual level checks throughout
lex, parse and sema.
llvm-svn: 211005
CRTP-like patterns involve a class which inherits from another class
using itself as a template parameter.
However, the base class itself may try to create a pointer-to-member
which involves the derived class. This is problematic because we
may not have finished parsing the most derived classes' base specifiers
yet.
It turns out that MSVC simply uses the unspecified inheritance model
instead of doing anything fancy.
This fixes PR19987.
llvm-svn: 210886
Previously we would do the access check from the context of
MarkVTableUsed.
Also update this test to C++11, since that is typically used with the MS
C++ ABI.
Fixes PR20005.
llvm-svn: 210850
Current MSVC versions don't have move assignment operators, so we
can't rely on them being available in the dll. If we have the
definition, we can just use that directly. This breaks pointer
equality, but should work fine otherwise.
When there is an MSVC version that supports move assignment,
we can key this off the -fmsc-ver option.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D4105
llvm-svn: 210715
We would previously end up with an error when instantiating the
following template:
template <typename> struct __declspec(dllimport) S {
void foo() = delete;
};
S<int> s;
error: attribute 'dllimport' cannot be applied to a deleted function
llvm-svn: 210550
will never be true in a well-defined context. The checking for null pointers
has been moved into the caller logic so it does not rely on undefined behavior.
llvm-svn: 210498
This implements the central part of support for dllimport/dllexport on
classes: allowing the attribute on class declarations, inheriting it
to class members, and forcing emission of exported members. It's based
on Nico Rieck's patch from http://reviews.llvm.org/D1099.
This patch doesn't propagate dllexport to bases that are template
specializations, which is an interesting problem. It also doesn't
look at the rules when redeclaring classes with different attributes,
I'd like to do that separately.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3877
llvm-svn: 209908
These note diags have the same message and can be unified further but for now
let's just bring them together.
Incidental change: Display a source range in the final attr diagnostic.
llvm-svn: 209728
The base class is the culprit/risk here - a sealed/final derived class
with virtual functions and a non-virtual dtor can't accidentally be
polymorphically destroyed (if the base class's dtor is protected - which
also suppresses this warning).
llvm-svn: 208449
class template member classes (PR19613)
Also improve this code in general by implementing suggestions
from Richard.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3555?id=9020
llvm-svn: 207822
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
Summary:
Declaring a function as inline after it has been defined is in violation
of [dcl.fct.spec]p4. The program would get a strong definition instead
of getting a function with linkonce_odr linkage.
Reviewers: rsmith
CC: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D3220
llvm-svn: 205129
that implicitly converts to 'bool' (such as pointers, and the first operand of
?:). Clean up issues found by this. Patch by Stephan Tolksdorf!
llvm-svn: 203735
