Skip to content
  1. Aug 07, 2012
  2. Aug 03, 2012
  3. Aug 02, 2012
  4. Aug 01, 2012
    • John McCall's avatar
      When devirtualizing the conversion to a virtual base subobject, · 13a39c6f
      John McCall authored
      don't explode if the offset we get is zero.  This can happen if
      you have an empty virtual base class.
      
      While I'm at it, remove an unnecessary block from the IR-generation
      of the null-check, mark the eventual GEP as inbounds, and generally
      prettify.
      
      llvm-svn: 161100
      13a39c6f
  5. Jul 31, 2012
  6. Jul 28, 2012
  7. Jul 27, 2012
    • Richard Smith's avatar
      Final piece of core issue 1330: delay computing the exception specification of · d3b5c908
      Richard Smith authored
      a defaulted special member function until the exception specification is needed
      (using the same criteria used for the delayed instantiation of exception
      specifications for function temploids).
      
      EST_Delayed is now EST_Unevaluated (using 1330's terminology), and, like
      EST_Uninstantiated, carries a pointer to the FunctionDecl which will be used to
      resolve the exception specification.
      
      This is enabled for all C++ modes: it's a little faster in the case where the
      exception specification isn't used, allows our C++11-in-C++98 extensions to
      work, and is still correct for C++98, since in that mode the computation of the
      exception specification can't fail.
      
      The diagnostics here aren't great (in particular, we should include implicit
      evaluation of exception specifications for defaulted special members in the
      template instantiation backtraces), but they're not much worse than before.
      
      Our approach to the problem of cycles between in-class initializers and the
      exception specification for a defaulted default constructor is modified a
      little by this change -- we now reject any odr-use of a defaulted default
      constructor if that constructor uses an in-class initializer and the use is in
      an in-class initialzer which is declared lexically earlier. This is a closer
      approximation to the current draft solution in core issue 1351, but isn't an
      exact match (but the current draft wording isn't reasonable, so that's to be
      expected).
      
      llvm-svn: 160847
      d3b5c908
  8. Jul 26, 2012
  9. Jul 24, 2012
  10. Jul 23, 2012
  11. Jul 17, 2012
  12. Jul 13, 2012
  13. Jul 12, 2012
  14. Jul 11, 2012
  15. Jul 08, 2012
  16. Jul 07, 2012
Loading