lgtm
Please commit, this looks pretty good. If you want to make any more substantial
changes I'd rather see a new patch. Thanks for the feature!
>>! In D4468#15, @nikola wrote:
> Fingers crossed.
>
> I'm not too happy with what I had to do with FileCheck to get the lambda test
> case working. This whole file expects c++11 to be disabled which prevents me
> from using -verify. I thought about moving this to MicrosoftCompatibility.cpp
> but that's misleading as __super is controlled by -mfs-extensions. Separate
> file for __super tests would be the way to solve all problems?
I don't see the FileCheck hacks in this patch. Did you add the file? That said,
feel free to split the __super test cases out. MicrosoftExtensions.cpp dates
back to a simpler time when there were fewer extensions. :)
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaCXXScopeSpec.cpp:259
@@ +258,3 @@
+ CXXMethodDecl *MD = dyn_cast<CXXMethodDecl>(S->getEntity());
+ if (MD && !MD->isStatic())
+ RD = MD->getParent();
----------------
Why can't we use this in static member functions? It appears to work with MSVC
2013, and MSDN just says "can only appear inside a member function". This
prints B::f:
extern "C" void puts(const char *);
struct B {
static void f() {
puts("B::f");
}
};
struct A : B {
static void f() {
__super::f();
}
};
int main() {
A::f();
}
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaCXXScopeSpec.cpp:269
@@ +268,3 @@
+
+ if (!RD || RD->isLambda()) {
+ Diag(SuperLoc, diag::err_invalid_super_scope);
----------------
I think we should give a custom diagnostic for lambdas. The diagnostic we issue
currently will confuse users, because it will appear that they are using
__super from a method, and we will say they aren't.
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/TreeTransform.h:3106
@@ +3105,3 @@
+ cast_or_null<CXXRecordDecl>(getDerived().TransformDecl(
+ SourceLocation(), QNNS->getAsRecordDecl()));
+ SS.MakeSuper(SemaRef.Context, RD, Q.getBeginLoc(), Q.getEndLoc());
----------------
Use Q.getBeginLoc() instead of no SLoc?
================
Comment at: test/SemaCXX/MicrosoftExtensions.cpp:407-409
@@ +406,5 @@
+
+ // expected-error@+4 {{C++ requires a type specifier for all declarations}}
+ // expected-warning@+3 {{empty parentheses interpreted as a function
declaration}}
+ // expected-note@+2 {{replace parentheses with an initializer to declare a
variable}}
+ static void foo() {
----------------
Ouch, this is bad error recovery. It'd be nice to figure out why we can recover
from 'Undeclared::foo();' with less spew.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D4468
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
