Recently tons of warnings show up for presumably "problematic"
singned <-> unsigned and size conversions.
The Qt side uses 'int', and that's the biggest 'integration surface'
for us, so instead of establishing some internal boundary between
signed and unsigned areas, push that boundary out of creator core code,
and use 'int' everywhere.
Because it reduces friction further, also do it in libcplusplus.
Change-Id: I84f3b79852c8029713e7ea6f133ffb9ef7030a70
Reviewed-by: Nikolai Kosjar <nikolai.kosjar@qt.io>
The code model failed to parse the noexcept operator which is often
used in noexcept specifiers, e.g.: "void f() noexcept(noexcept(g()));"
Consequently some c++11 headers such as unordered_map, array
and unordered_set could not be parsed and no code completition was
available. I have created the NoExceptOperatorExpressionAST class
which is created whenever a noexcept token is found in an
expression with operator precedence. The noExcept test case
in the cplusplus/cxx11 test now contains a function that
uses the noexcept operator.
Fixed noexcept operator parsing
Added the test requested by Sergey Shambir, which then revealed that
i had not implemeneted the noexpect operator parsing according to the
c++ specification.
As stated here http://cpp0x.centaur.ath.cx/expr.unary.noexcept.html
the noexcept operator is a unary-expression that contains an
expression (and not a constant-expression). This should now be fixed.
Change-Id: Id4a99a43b660bd83e7680274491d99a698b57094
Reviewed-by: Nikolai Kosjar <nikolai.kosjar@theqtcompany.com>
See [global.names] (17.6.4.3.2 in the C++11 spec.)
Change-Id: I8434496dbe392b52d339d5f17cfaeee8dbd88995
Reviewed-by: Nikolai Kosjar <nikolai.kosjar@digia.com>
This time in the 'new' expression. Changed it to make
new C(1, abc...) and new C{1, abc}
work.
Change-Id: I7232798fd083b653ee04ef9ede386d6536133e16
Reviewed-by: hjk <qthjk@ovi.com>
It'll be reused as the initializer expression for declarators
that are followed by "( expression-list )".
Change-Id: I6c76a76641941874ef1ed21daa7b6e057c6d170f
Reviewed-by: hjk <qthjk@ovi.com>
they are lying. nokia has no copyright on this code. and the double
license in a single file looks weird. that's why we moved it to
3rdparty/, so it is clear it is not nokia's.
Approved-by: legal
