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

llvm-svn: 76826

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

llvm-svn: 75168

list.

llvm-svn: 74571

fields in the ctor-initializer list.

llvm-svn: 74554

in ctor-initializer list.

llvm-svn: 74541

class C {
    C() { }
    
    int a;
};

C::C() : a(10) { }

We also diagnose when initializers are used on declarations that aren't constructors:

t.cpp:1:10: error: only constructors take base initializers
void f() : a(10) { }
         ^

Doug and/or Sebastian: I'd appreciate a review, especially the nested-name-spec test results (from the looks of it we now match gcc in that test.)

llvm-svn: 67672

Tests and drivers updated, still need to shuffle dirs.

llvm-svn: 67602

information about types.  We often print diagnostics where we say 
"foo_t" is bad, but the user doesn't know how foo_t is declared 
(because it is a typedef).  Fix this by expanding sugar when present
in a diagnostic (and not one of a few special cases, like vectors).

Before:
t.m:5:2: error: invalid operands to binary expression ('typeof(P)' and 'typeof(F)')
 MAX(P, F);
 ^~~~~~~~~
t.m:1:78: note: instantiated from:
#define MAX(A,B)    ({ __typeof__(A) __a = (A); __typeof__(B) __b = (B); __a < __b ? __b : __a; })
                                                                             ^

After:
t.m:5:2: error: invalid operands to binary expression ('typeof(P)' (aka 'struct mystruct') and 'typeof(F)' (aka 'float'))
 MAX(P, F);
 ^~~~~~~~~
t.m:1:78: note: instantiated from:
#define MAX(A,B)    ({ __typeof__(A) __a = (A); __typeof__(B) __b = (B); __a < __b ? __b : __a; })
                                                                             ^

llvm-svn: 65081

llvm-svn: 58989

for constructor initializations, e.g.,

  class A { };
  class B : public A { 
    int m;
  public:
    B() : A(), m(17) { };
  };

llvm-svn: 58749