[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
fjahanian at apple.com
Mon Jun 22 09:35:27 PDT 2009
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
More information about the cfe-commits
mailing list