[cfe-commits] r73833 - in /cfe/trunk: include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp test/SemaCXX/default-constructor-initializers.cpp test/SemaCXX/default-contructor-initializers.cpp

[Fariborz Jahanian]

On Jun 20, 2009, at 2:59 PM, Sebastian Redl wrote:

>
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:23:39 -0000, Fariborz Jahanian <fjahanian at apple.com 
> >
> wrote:
>> Author: fjahanian
>> Date: Sat Jun 20 15:23:38 2009
>> New Revision: 73833
>>
>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=73833&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Made improvements in c++'s object model patch on Doug's review.
>>
>>
>> Added:
>>    cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/default-constructor-initializers.cpp
>> Removed:
>>    cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/default-contructor-initializers.cpp
>> Modified:
>>    cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td
>>    cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp
>>
>> Modified: cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td
>> URL:
>>
> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td?rev=73833&r1=73832&r2=73833&view=diff
>>
>>
> = 
> = 
> = 
> = 
> = 
> = 
> = 
> = 
> ======================================================================
>> --- cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td (original)
>> +++ cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td Sat Jun 20
>> 15:23:38 2009
>> @@ -580,13 +580,13 @@
>>   "default arguments can only be specified for parameters in a  
>> function
> "
>>   "declaration">;
>> def err_defining_default_ctor : Error<
>> -  "cannot define the default constructor for %0, because %1 does  
>> not "
>> -  "have any default constructor">;
>> -def not_previous_class_decl : Note<
>> -  "class %0 declared here">;
>> +  "cannot define the default constructor for %0, because  
>> %select{base
>> class|member}1 "
>> +  "%2 does not have any implicit default constructor">;
>
> I think Doug meant that the other way round. The base/member doesn't  
> need
> an implicit default constructor; any default constructor will do.  
> But the
> constructor being defined is implicit.
Yes, I meant it the other way. Thanks for catching it.

http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=rev&revision=73885

- Fariborz

>
>
> Sebastian