| 8e8fb3be5bd78f0564444eca02b404566a5f3b5d |
|
19-Oct-2012 |
Andy Gibbs <andyg1001@hotmail.co.uk> |
Prior to adding the new "expected-no-diagnostics" directive to VerifyDiagnosticConsumer, make the necessary adjustment to 580 test-cases which will henceforth require this new directive.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@166280 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
/external/clang/test/CXX/special/class.copy/p8-cxx11.cpp
|
| 3f5f558a4ca08fe952cbbdf69b87487163c9a719 |
|
08-Jun-2012 |
Richard Smith <richard-llvm@metafoo.co.uk> |
PR13051: If a constructor is explicitly defaulted, it isn't marked as being
constexpr until we get to the end of the class definition. When that happens,
be sure to remember that the class actually does have a constexpr constructor.
This is a stopgap solution, which still doesn't cover the case of a class with
multiple copy constructors (only some of which are constexpr). We should be
performing constructor lookup when implicitly defining a constructor in order
to determine whether all constructors it invokes are constexpr.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@158228 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
/external/clang/test/CXX/special/class.copy/p8-cxx11.cpp
|
| 704c8f76bbe2de68375f7f146e75bd74de6dd518 |
|
20-Apr-2012 |
Richard Smith <richard-llvm@metafoo.co.uk> |
Fix bug where a class's (deleted) copy constructor would be implicitly given a
non-const reference parameter type if the class had any subobjects with deleted
copy constructors. This causes a rejects-valid if the class's copy constructor
is explicitly defaulted (as happens for some implementations of std::pair etc).
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@155218 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
/external/clang/test/CXX/special/class.copy/p8-cxx11.cpp
|