From: Fariborz Jahanian Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 20:38:53 +0000 (+0000) Subject: Remove previous patch for pr5296 due to further clarification X-Git-Url: https://granicus.if.org/sourcecode?a=commitdiff_plain;h=6f26920dfa5020202016b18f52ccd120d9c7e518;p=clang Remove previous patch for pr5296 due to further clarification of value-initialization and trivial constructors. git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@85935 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8 --- diff --git a/lib/Sema/SemaExprCXX.cpp b/lib/Sema/SemaExprCXX.cpp index ed6b67787a..4868c14835 100644 --- a/lib/Sema/SemaExprCXX.cpp +++ b/lib/Sema/SemaExprCXX.cpp @@ -253,20 +253,6 @@ Sema::ActOnCXXTypeConstructExpr(SourceRange TypeRange, TypeTy *TypeRep, << FullRange); assert(NumExprs == 0 && "Expected 0 expressions"); - - if (const RecordType *Record = Ty->getAs()) { - 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 @@ -467,21 +453,7 @@ Sema::BuildCXXNew(SourceLocation StartLoc, bool UseGlobal, return ExprError(Diag(StartLoc, diag::err_new_uninitialized_const) << TypeRange); } else if (NumConsArgs == 0) { - // Object is value-initialized. - if (const RecordType *Record = AllocType->getAs()) { - 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? diff --git a/test/SemaCXX/value-initialization.cpp b/test/SemaCXX/value-initialization.cpp index 6b99297361..29d866fa64 100644 --- a/test/SemaCXX/value-initialization.cpp +++ b/test/SemaCXX/value-initialization.cpp @@ -1,23 +1,10 @@ // 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}} }