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
This is a reapplication of r203236 with modifications to the definition of attrs() and following the new style guidelines on auto usage.
llvm-svn: 203362
or virtual functions, but permit that error to be downgraded to
a warning (with -Wno-error=incompatible-ms-struct), and officially
support this kind of dual, ABI-mixing layout.
The basic problem here is that projects which use ms_struct are often
not very circumspect about what types they annotate; for example,
some projects enable the pragma in a prefix header and then only
selectively disable it around system header inclusions. They may
only care about binary compatibility with MSVC for a subset of
those structs, but that doesn't mean they have no binary
compatibility concerns at all for the rest; thus we are essentially
forced into supporting this hybrid ABI. But it's reasonable for
us to at least point out the places where we're not making
any guarantees.
The original diagnostic was for dynamic classes, i.e. those with
virtual functions or virtual bases; I've extended it to include
all classes with bases, because we are not actually making any
attempt to duplicate MSVC's base subobject layout in ms_struct
(and it is indeed quite different from Itanium, even for
non-virtual bases).
rdar://16178895
llvm-svn: 202427
We were previously checking at every destructor declaration, but that was a bit
excessive. Since the deleting destructor is emitted with the vtable, do the
check when the vtable is marked used.
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2851
llvm-svn: 202046
The following attributes have been (silently) deprecated, with their replacements listed:
lockable => capability
exclusive_locks_required => requires_capability
shared_locks_required => requires_shared_capability
locks_excluded => requires_capability
There are no functional changes intended.
llvm-svn: 201585
using-declaration, and they declare the same function (either because
the using-declaration is in the same namespace as the declaration it
imports, or because they're both extern "C"), they do not conflict.
llvm-svn: 200897
redeclaration, not just when looking them up for a use -- we need the implicit
declaration to appropriately check various properties of them (notably, whether
they're deleted).
llvm-svn: 200729
