CXXBaseOrMemberInitializer AST node. Needed by
its clients to do the initialization.

llvm-svn: 76826

value.  This is on by default, and controlled by -Wreturn-type (-Wmost
-Wall).  I believe there should be very few false positives, though
the most interesting case would be:

  int() { bar(); }

when bar does:

  bar() { while (1) ; }

Here, we assume functions return, unless they are marked with the
noreturn attribute.  I can envision a fixit note for functions that
never return normally that don't have a noreturn attribute to add a
noreturn attribute.

If anyone spots other false positives, let me know!

llvm-svn: 76821

definitions.

I'm not very familiar with this code, so please review.

llvm-svn: 76796

llvm-svn: 76709

1. Make it work correctly with anonymous unions.
2. Don't compute it if the warning isn't enabled.
3. Optimize the algorithm slightly to make it linear time in the 
case where we don't produce any warnings.

llvm-svn: 76630

llvm-svn: 76583

llvm-svn: 76577

struct foo {
  static bool value;
};
bool (foo::value); // crash because of parens

llvm-svn: 76538

llvm-svn: 76494

a destructor.

llvm-svn: 76436

llvm-svn: 76348

llvm-svn: 76317

llvm-svn: 76263

 - These kinds of "shotgun" tests are very slow, and do not belong in the
   regression suite. If these kinds of tests are regarded to have value, they
   should be added to the LLVM test-suite.

 - I would actually like to remove all of these tests, but I left Sema/carbon.c
   and SemaObjC/cocoa.m...

llvm-svn: 75399

llvm-svn: 75327

llvm-svn: 75291

in their order of construction for each class and use it 
to to check on propery order of base class construction 
under -Wreorder option.

llvm-svn: 75270

llvm-svn: 75175

class object's base and members under -Wreorder flag.

llvm-svn: 75168

llvm-svn: 75152

llvm-svn: 75150

namespaces based on the template arguments of a class template
specialization type.

llvm-svn: 74993

llvm-svn: 74943

llvm-svn: 74937

llvm-svn: 74833

wchar_t.

llvm-svn: 74808

llvm-svn: 74787

list.

llvm-svn: 74571

fields in the ctor-initializer list.

llvm-svn: 74554

in ctor-initializer list.

llvm-svn: 74541

llvm-svn: 74481

list.

llvm-svn: 74480

llvm-svn: 74472

in the ctor-initializer list. More to come.

llvm-svn: 74465

llvm-svn: 74362

llvm-svn: 74307

these are usually because the parser was thoroughly confused.  In addition
to typing the value being declared as an int and hoping for the best, we
mark the value as invalid so we don't get chains of errors when it is
used downstream.  In C, implicit int actually is valid, so typing the thing
as int is good and marking it invalid is bad. :)

llvm-svn: 74266

but at least we don't crash :)

llvm-svn: 74264

llvm-svn: 74262

llvm-svn: 74258