specialization's arguments are identical to the implicit template
arguments of the primary template. Typically, this is meant to be a
declaration/definition of the primary template, so we give that
advice.
llvm-svn: 73259
partial specialization, substitute those template arguments back into
the template arguments of the class template partial specialization to
see if the results still match the original template arguments.
This code is more general than it needs to be, since we don't yet
diagnose C++ [temp.class.spec]p9. However, it's likely to be needed
for function templates.
llvm-svn: 73196
deductions of the same template parameter are equivalent. This allows
us to implement the is_same type trait (!).
Also, move template argument deduction into its own file and update a
few build systems with this change (grrrr).
llvm-svn: 72819
we have the basics of declaring and storing class template partial
specializations, matching class template partial specializations at
instantiation time via (limited) template argument deduction, and
using the class template partial specialization's pattern for
instantiation.
This patch is enough to make a simple is_pointer type trait work, but
not much else.
llvm-svn: 72662
specifier resulted in the creation of a new TagDecl node, which
happens either when the tag specifier was a definition or when the tag
specifier was the first declaration of that tag type. This information
has several uses, the first of which is implemented in this commit:
1) In C++, one is not allowed to define tag types within a type
specifier (e.g., static_cast<struct S { int x; } *>(0) is
ill-formed) or within the result or parameter types of a
function. We now diagnose this.
2) We can extend DeclGroups to contain information about any tags
that are declared/defined within the declaration specifiers of a
variable, e.g.,
struct Point { int x, y, z; } p;
This will help improve AST printing and template instantiation,
among other things.
3) For C99, we can keep track of whether a tag type is defined
within the type of a parameter, to properly cope with cases like,
e.g.,
int bar(struct T2 { int x; } y) {
struct T2 z;
}
We can also do similar things wherever there is a type specifier,
e.g., to keep track of where the definition of S occurs in this
legal C99 code:
(struct S { int x, y; } *)0
llvm-svn: 72555
template, introduce that member function into the template
instantiation stack. Also, add diagnostics showing the member function
within the instantiation stack and clean up the qualified-name
printing so that we get something like:
note: in instantiation of member function 'Switch1<int, 2, 2>::f'
requested here
in the template instantiation backtrace.
llvm-svn: 72015
template<typename T>
struct X {
struct Inner;
};
template struct X<int>::Inner;
This change is larger than it looks because it also fixes some
a problem with nested-name-specifiers and tags. We weren't requiring
the DeclContext associated with the scope specifier of a tag to be
complete. Therefore, when looking for something like "struct
X<int>::Inner", we weren't instantiating X<int>.
This, naturally, uncovered a problem with member pointers, where we
were requiring the left-hand side of a member pointer access
expression (e.g., x->*) to be a complete type. However, this is wrong:
the semantics of this expression does not require a complete type (EDG
agrees).
Stuart vouched for me. Blame him.
llvm-svn: 71756
of class members (recursively). Only member classes are actually
instantiated; the instantiation logic for member functions and
variables are just stubs.
llvm-svn: 71713
templates. In particular:
- An explicit instantiation can follow an implicit instantiation (we
were improperly diagnosing this as an error, previously).
- In C++0x, an explicit instantiation that follows an explicit
specialization of the same template specialization is ignored. In
C++98, we just emit an extension warning.
- In C++0x, an explicit instantiation must be in a namespace
enclosing the original template. C++98 has no such requirement.
Also, fixed a longstanding FIXME regarding the integral type that is
used for the size of a constant array type when it is being instantiated.
llvm-svn: 71689
still aren't instantiating the definitions of class template members,
and core issues 275 and 259 will both affect the checking that we do
for explicit instantiations (but are not yet implemented).
llvm-svn: 71613
TemplateArgumentList. This avoids the need to pass around
pointer/length pairs of template arguments lists, and will eventually
make it easier to introduce member templates and variadic templates.
llvm-svn: 71517
specialization" within a C++ template, and permit name lookup into the
current instantiation. For example, given:
template<typename T, typename U>
struct X {
typedef T type;
X* x1; // current instantiation
X<T, U> *x2; // current instantiation
X<U, T> *x3; // not current instantiation
::X<type, U> *x4; // current instantiation
X<typename X<type, U>::type, U>: *x5; // current instantiation
};
llvm-svn: 71471
template. The injected-class-name is either a type or a template,
depending on whether a '<' follows it. As a type, the
injected-class-name's template argument list contains its template
parameters in declaration order.
As part of this, add logic for canonicalizing declarations, and be
sure to canonicalize declarations used in template names and template
arguments.
A TagType is dependent if the declaration it references is dependent.
I'm not happy about the rather complicated protocol needed to use
ASTContext::getTemplateSpecializationType.
llvm-svn: 71408
failures that involve malformed types, e.g., "typename X::foo" where
"foo" isn't a type, or "std::vector<void>" that doens't instantiate
properly.
Similarly, be a bit smarter in our handling of ambiguities that occur
in Sema::getTypeName, to eliminate duplicate error messages about
ambiguous name lookup.
This eliminates two XFAILs in test/SemaCXX, one of which was crying
out to us, trying to tell us that we were producing repeated error
messages.
llvm-svn: 68251
within nested-name-specifiers, e.g., for the "apply" in
typename MetaFun::template apply<T1, T2>::type
At present, we can't instantiate these nested-name-specifiers, so our
testing is sketchy.
llvm-svn: 68081
representation handles the various ways in which one can name a
template, including unqualified references ("vector"), qualified
references ("std::vector"), and dependent template names
("MetaFun::template apply").
One immediate effect of this change is that the representation of
nested-name-specifiers in type names for class template
specializations (e.g., std::vector<int>) is more accurate. Rather than
representing std::vector<int> as
std::(vector<int>)
we represent it as
(std::vector)<int>
which more closely follows the C++ grammar.
Additionally, templates are no longer represented as declarations
(DeclPtrTy) in Parse-Sema interactions. Instead, I've introduced a new
OpaquePtr type (TemplateTy) that holds the representation of a
TemplateName. This will simplify the handling of dependent
template-names, once we get there.
llvm-svn: 68074
pointer. Its purpose in life is to be a glorified void*, but which does not
implicitly convert to void* or other OpaquePtr's with a different UID.
Introduce Action::DeclPtrTy which is a typedef for OpaquePtr<0>. Change the
entire parser/sema interface to use DeclPtrTy instead of DeclTy*. This
makes the C++ compiler enforce that these aren't convertible to other opaque
types.
We should also convert ExprTy, StmtTy, TypeTy, AttrTy, BaseTy, etc,
but I don't plan to do that in the short term.
The one outstanding known problem with this patch is that we lose the
bitmangling optimization where ActionResult<DeclPtrTy> doesn't know how to
bitmangle the success bit into the low bit of DeclPtrTy. I will rectify
this with a subsequent patch.
llvm-svn: 67952
instantiation for C++ typename-specifiers such as
typename T::type
The parsing of typename-specifiers is relatively easy thanks to
annotation tokens. When we see the "typename", we parse the
typename-specifier and produce a typename annotation token. There are
only a few places where we need to handle this. We currently parse the
typename-specifier form that terminates in an identifier, but not the
simple-template-id form, e.g.,
typename T::template apply<U, V>
Parsing of nested-name-specifiers has a similar problem, since at this
point we don't have any representation of a class template
specialization whose template-name is unknown.
Semantic analysis is only partially complete, with some support for
template instantiation that works for simple examples.
llvm-svn: 67875
