<< FullRange);
assert(NumExprs == 0 && "Expected 0 expressions");
-
- if (const RecordType *Record = Ty->getAs<RecordType>()) {
- if (!Record->getDecl()->isUnion()) {
- // As clarified in C++ DR302, generate constructor for
- // value-initialization cases, even if the implementation technique
- // doesn't call the constructor at that point.
- ASTOwningVector<&ActionBase::DeleteExpr> ConstructorArgs(*this);
- (void)PerformInitializationByConstructor(Ty, MultiExprArg(*this, 0, 0),
- TypeRange.getBegin(),
- TypeRange, DeclarationName(),
- IK_Default, ConstructorArgs);
- }
- }
-
// C++ [expr.type.conv]p2:
// The expression T(), where T is a simple-type-specifier for a non-array
// complete object type or the (possibly cv-qualified) void type, creates an
return ExprError(Diag(StartLoc, diag::err_new_uninitialized_const)
<< TypeRange);
} else if (NumConsArgs == 0) {
- // Object is value-initialized.
- if (const RecordType *Record = AllocType->getAs<RecordType>()) {
- if (!Record->getDecl()->isUnion()) {
- // As clarified in C++ DR302, generate constructor for
- // value-initialization cases, even if the implementation technique
- // doesn't call the constructor at that point.
- ASTOwningVector<&ActionBase::DeleteExpr> ConstructorArgs(*this);
- (void)PerformInitializationByConstructor(AllocType,
- MultiExprArg(*this, 0, 0),
- TypeRange.getBegin(),
- TypeRange, DeclarationName(),
- IK_Default,
- ConstructorArgs);
- }
- }
+ // Object is value-initialized. Do nothing.
} else if (NumConsArgs == 1) {
// Object is direct-initialized.
// FIXME: What DeclarationName do we pass in here?
// RUN: clang-cc -fsyntax-only -verify %s -std=c++0x
struct A {
- ~A();
- const int i; // expected-note {{declared at}}
-};
-
-struct B {
- // B is a non-POD with no user-written constructor.
- // It has a nontrivial generated constructor.
- const int i[12]; // expected-note {{declared at}}
- A a;
+ const int i; // expected-note {{declared at}}
+ virtual void f() { }
};
int main () {
- // Value-initializing a "B" doesn't call the default constructor for
- // "B"; it value-initializes the members of B. Therefore it shouldn't
- // cause an error on generation of the default constructor for the
- // following:
- new B(); // expected-error {{cannot define the implicit default constructor for 'struct B', because const member 'i'}}
- (void)B();
- (void)A(); // expected-error {{cannot define the implicit default constructor for 'struct A', because const member 'i'}}
+ (void)A(); // expected-error {{cannot define the implicit default constructor for 'struct A', because const member 'i' cannot be default-initialized}}
}