PR23942: a pure-specifier's integer literal must be spelled '0'
llvm-svn: 241019
diff --git a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp
index ae97b24..bce0a37 100644
--- a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp
+++ b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp
@@ -8783,6 +8783,19 @@
}
}
+/// Determine whether the given expression was formed from the token '0'. This
+/// test is necessary to determine whether an initializer is really a
+/// pure-specifier.
+static bool isZeroToken(Sema &S, Expr *E) {
+ auto *IL = dyn_cast<IntegerLiteral>(E);
+ if (!IL || !!IL->getValue() ||
+ !IL->getType()->isSpecificBuiltinType(BuiltinType::Int))
+ return false;
+
+ SmallString<8> Buffer;
+ return S.PP.getSpelling(E->getLocStart(), Buffer) == "0";
+}
+
/// AddInitializerToDecl - Adds the initializer Init to the
/// declaration dcl. If DirectInit is true, this is C++ direct
/// initialization rather than copy initialization.
@@ -8799,9 +8812,11 @@
// With declarators parsed the way they are, the parser cannot
// distinguish between a normal initializer and a pure-specifier.
// Thus this grotesque test.
- IntegerLiteral *IL;
- if ((IL = dyn_cast<IntegerLiteral>(Init)) && IL->getValue() == 0 &&
- Context.getCanonicalType(IL->getType()) == Context.IntTy)
+ //
+ // FIXME: The parser should instead treat anything that looks like a
+ // pure-specifier as a pure-specifier, and Sema should convert it to an
+ // initializer when necessary, rather than doing things this way around.
+ if (!DirectInit && isZeroToken(*this, Init))
CheckPureMethod(Method, Init->getSourceRange());
else {
Diag(Method->getLocation(), diag::err_member_function_initialization)