| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This patch fixes PR8264. Duplicate qualifiers already are diagnozed,
now the same diagnostics is issued for duplicate function specifiers.
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2025
llvm-svn: 194559
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
definition. Bump some related diagnostics from warning to extension in C++, since they're errors there. Add some missing checks for function specifiers on non-function declarations.
llvm-svn: 177335
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
warning. It's not harmful to have such pointless declarations, and GCC
does not diagnose this issue consistently.
llvm-svn: 100814
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
an *almost* always incorrect case. This only does the lookahead
in the insanely unlikely case, so it shouldn't impact performance.
On this testcase:
struct foo {
}
typedef int x;
Before:
t.c:3:9: error: cannot combine with previous 'struct' declaration specifier
typedef int x;
^
After:
t.c:2:2: error: expected ';' after struct
}
^
;
llvm-svn: 97403
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
type qualifiers and type specifiers in any order. For example,
this is valid: struct x {...} typedef y;
This fixes PR6208.
llvm-svn: 95094
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
forgetting a ';' at the end of a struct. For something like:
class c {
}
void foo() {}
we now produce:
t.cc:3:2: error: expected ';' after class
}
^
;
instead of:
t.cc:4:1: error: cannot combine with previous 'class' declaration specifier
void foo() {}
^
t.cc:2:7: error: 'class c' can not be defined in the result type of a function
class c {
^
GCC produces:
t.cc:4: error: new types may not be defined in a return type
t.cc:4: note: (perhaps a semicolon is missing after the definition of ‘c’)
t.cc:4: error: two or more data types in declaration of ‘foo’
I *think* I got the follow set right, but if I forgot anything, we'll start
getting spurious "expected ';' after class" errors, let me know if you see
any.
llvm-svn: 95042
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
say either "array type" or "function type", whichever it is. No reason
to make the user guess.
llvm-svn: 93164
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
qualifier. this also removes a FIXME
llvm-svn: 91601
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
- 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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Tests and drivers updated, still need to shuffle dirs.
llvm-svn: 67602
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
information about types. We often print diagnostics where we say
"foo_t" is bad, but the user doesn't know how foo_t is declared
(because it is a typedef). Fix this by expanding sugar when present
in a diagnostic (and not one of a few special cases, like vectors).
Before:
t.m:5:2: error: invalid operands to binary expression ('typeof(P)' and 'typeof(F)')
MAX(P, F);
^~~~~~~~~
t.m:1:78: note: instantiated from:
#define MAX(A,B) ({ __typeof__(A) __a = (A); __typeof__(B) __b = (B); __a < __b ? __b : __a; })
^
After:
t.m:5:2: error: invalid operands to binary expression ('typeof(P)' (aka 'struct mystruct') and 'typeof(F)' (aka 'float'))
MAX(P, F);
^~~~~~~~~
t.m:1:78: note: instantiated from:
#define MAX(A,B) ({ __typeof__(A) __a = (A); __typeof__(B) __b = (B); __a < __b ? __b : __a; })
^
llvm-svn: 65081
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
instead of converting them to strings first. This also fixes a
bunch of minor inconsistencies in the diagnostics emitted by clang
and adds a bunch of FIXME's to DiagnosticKinds.def.
llvm-svn: 59948
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 49097
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
object or incomplete types shall not be restrict-qualified."
2) Warn about qualifiers on function types: C99 6.7.3p8: "If the
specification of a function type includes any type qualifiers, the
behavior is undefined."
3) Implement restrict on C++ references.
4) fix some locations for various C++ reference diagnostics.
llvm-svn: 49081
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 47103
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=1987.
This commit only "guards" the call to ParseDeclarationSpecifiers() in ParseDeclarationOrFunctionDefinition().
We could consider guarding all calls, however this is a bit radical (since it effectively stops parsing the declaration once we have a bad declspec). Will discuss with Chris tomorrow.
llvm-svn: 46984
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This avoids a double free (which is good:-)
Bug submitted by Eli.
llvm-svn: 46105
|
|
|
llvm-svn: 45188
|
