| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
and misclassify it as a complex-real conversion.
llvm-svn: 181626
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
diagnostic message are compared. If either is a substring of the other, then
no error is given. This gives rise to an unexpected case:
// expect-error{{candidate function has different number of parameters}}
will match the following error messages from Clang:
candidate function has different number of parameters (expected 1 but has 2)
candidate function has different number of parameters
It will also match these other error messages:
candidate function
function has different number of parameters
number of parameters
This patch will change so that the verification string must be a substring of
the diagnostic message before accepting. Also, all the failing tests from this
change have been corrected. Some stats from this cleanup:
87 - removed extra spaces around verification strings
70 - wording updates to diagnostics
40 - extra leading or trailing characters (typos, unmatched parens or quotes)
35 - diagnostic level was included (error:, warning:, or note:)
18 - flag name put in the warning (-Wprotocol)
llvm-svn: 146619
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
types. Rank these conversions below other conversions. This allows overload
resolution when the only distinction is between a complex and scalar type. It
also brings the complex overload resolutin in line with GCC's.
llvm-svn: 97128
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
- 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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
complex conversions where the conversion between the real types is an
integral promotion. This is how G++ handles complex promotions for its
complex integer extension.
llvm-svn: 64344
|
|
|
system. Since C99 doesn't have overloading and C++ doesn't have
_Complex, there is no specification for this. Here's what I think
makes sense.
Complex conversions come in several flavors:
- Complex promotions: a complex -> complex conversion where the
underlying real-type conversion is a floating-point promotion. GCC
seems to call this a promotion, EDG does something else. This is
given "promotion" rank for determining the best viable function.
- Complex conversions: a complex -> complex conversion that is
not a complex promotion. This is given "conversion" rank for
determining the best viable function.
- Complex-real conversions: a real -> complex or complex -> real
conversion. This is given "conversion" rank for determining the
best viable function.
These rules are the same for C99 (when using the "overloadable"
attribute) and C++. However, there is one difference in the handling
of floating-point promotions: in C99, float -> long double and double
-> long double are considered promotions (so we give them "promotion"
rank), while C++ considers these conversions ("conversion" rank).
llvm-svn: 64343
|
