[cfe-commits] r73782 - in /cfe/trunk: include/clang/AST/DeclCXX.h include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td lib/AST/DeclCXX.cpp lib/Sema/Sema.h lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp test/SemaCXX/default-contructor-initializers.cpp

[Douglas Gregor]

On Jun 20, 2009, at 1:29 PM, Fariborz Jahanian wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Douglas Gregor wrote:
>> On Jun 19, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Fariborz Jahanian wrote:
>>
>>> Modified: cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td
>>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td?rev=73782&r1=73781&r2=73782&view=diff
>>>
>>> =
>>> =
>>> =
>>> =
>>> =
>>> =
>>> =
>>> =
>>> =
>>> =
>>> ====================================================================
>>> --- cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td (original)
>>> +++ cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td Fri Jun  
>>> 19 14:55:27 2009
>>> @@ -573,6 +573,14 @@
>>> def err_param_default_argument_nonfunc : Error<
>>> "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">;
>>
>> This is a nice error message. Could you add "base class" in there  
>> before the %1, so the user knows we're talking about a base class  
>> and not a member? Also, we should say "implicit default  
>> constructor" to make it clear that it isn't the user's constructor.
>>
>> I wonder if it makes sense to have a note point at the base  
>> specifier ("public X2") to show where the derivation came from. I  
>> can imagine cases involving template types where it might not be  
>> clear which base specifier results in this particular base class!
>
> I think I am already doing this; sample:
>
> default-constructor-initializers.cpp:14:4: error: cannot define the  
> default constructor for 'struct X3', because member 'struct X2' does  
> not have any implicit default constructor
> X3 x3;  // expected-error {{cannot define the default constructor  
> for 'struct X3', because member 'struct X2' does not have any  
> implicit default constructor}}
>   ^
> default-constructor-initializers.cpp:7:8: note: 'struct X2' declared  
> here
> struct X2  : X1 {  // expected-note {{'struct X2' declared here}} \
>       ^

Okay, I see you've removed the word "implicit" in a later commit.  
Thanks!

> Other stuff is taken care of at:
>
> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=rev&revision=73833


Thanks!

   - Doug