1 files changed, 183 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/clang/test/SemaCXX/undefined-internal.cpp b/clang/test/SemaCXX/undefined-internal.cpp
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1541720
--- /dev/null
+++ b/clang/test/SemaCXX/undefined-internal.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,183 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify %s
+
+// Make sure we don't produce invalid IR.
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -emit-llvm-only %s
+
+namespace test1 {
+  static void foo(); // expected-warning {{function 'test1::foo' has internal linkage but is not defined}}
+  template <class T> static void bar(); // expected-warning {{function 'test1::bar<int>' has internal linkage but is not defined}}
+
+  void test() {
+    foo(); // expected-note {{used here}}
+    bar<int>(); // expected-note {{used here}}
+  }
+}
+
+namespace test2 {
+  namespace {
+    void foo(); // expected-warning {{function 'test2::<anonymous namespace>::foo' has internal linkage but is not defined}}
+    extern int var; // expected-warning {{variable 'test2::<anonymous namespace>::var' has internal linkage but is not defined}}
+    template <class T> void bar(); // expected-warning {{function 'test2::<anonymous namespace>::bar<int>' has internal linkage but is not defined}}
+  }
+  void test() {
+    foo(); // expected-note {{used here}}
+    var = 0; // expected-note {{used here}}
+    bar<int>(); // expected-note {{used here}}
+  }
+}
+
+namespace test3 {
+  namespace {
+    void foo();
+    extern int var;
+    template <class T> void bar();
+  }
+
+  void test() {
+    foo();
+    var = 0;
+    bar<int>();
+  }
+
+  namespace {
+    void foo() {}
+    int var = 0;
+    template <class T> void bar() {}
+  }
+}
+
+namespace test4 {
+  namespace {
+    struct A {
+      A(); // expected-warning {{function 'test4::<anonymous namespace>::A::A' has internal linkage but is not defined}}
+      ~A();// expected-warning {{function 'test4::<anonymous namespace>::A::~A' has internal linkage but is not defined}}
+      virtual void foo(); // expected-warning {{function 'test4::<anonymous namespace>::A::foo' has internal linkage but is not defined}}
+      virtual void bar() = 0;
+      virtual void baz(); // expected-warning {{function 'test4::<anonymous namespace>::A::baz' has internal linkage but is not defined}}
+    };
+  }
+
+  void test(A &a) {
+    a.foo(); // expected-note {{used here}}
+    a.bar();
+    a.baz(); // expected-note {{used here}}
+  }
+
+  struct Test : A {
+    Test() {} // expected-note 2 {{used here}}
+  };
+}
+
+// rdar://problem/9014651
+namespace test5 {
+  namespace {
+    struct A {};
+  }
+
+  template <class N> struct B {
+    static int var; // expected-warning {{variable 'test5::B<test5::<anonymous>::A>::var' has internal linkage but is not defined}}
+    static void foo(); // expected-warning {{function 'test5::B<test5::<anonymous>::A>::foo' has internal linkage but is not defined}}
+  };
+
+  void test() {
+    B<A>::var = 0; // expected-note {{used here}}
+    B<A>::foo(); // expected-note {{used here}}
+  }
+}
+
+namespace test6 {
+  template <class T> struct A {
+    static const int zero = 0;
+    static const int one = 1;
+    static const int two = 2;
+
+    int value;
+
+    A() : value(zero) {
+      value = one;
+    }
+  };
+
+  namespace { struct Internal; }
+
+  void test() {
+    A<Internal> a;
+    a.value = A<Internal>::two;
+  }
+}
+
+// We support (as an extension) private, undefined copy constructors when
+// a temporary is bound to a reference even in C++98. Similarly, we shouldn't
+// warn about this copy constructor being used without a definition.
+namespace PR9323 {
+  namespace {
+    struct Uncopyable {
+      Uncopyable() {}
+    private:
+      Uncopyable(const Uncopyable&); // expected-note {{declared private here}}
+    };
+  }
+  void f(const Uncopyable&) {}
+  void test() {
+    f(Uncopyable()); // expected-warning {{C++98 requires an accessible copy constructor}}
+  };
+}
+
+
+namespace std { class type_info; };
+namespace cxx11_odr_rules {
+  // Note: the way this test is written isn't really ideal, but there really
+  // isn't any other way to check that the odr-used logic for constants
+  // is working without working implicit capture in lambda-expressions.
+  // (The more accurate used-but-not-defined warning is the only other visible
+  // effect of accurate odr-used computation.)
+  //
+  // Note that the warning in question can trigger in cases some people would
+  // consider false positives; hopefully that happens rarely in practice.
+  //
+  // FIXME: Suppressing this test while I figure out how to fix a bug in the
+  // odr-use marking code.
+
+  namespace {
+    struct A {
+      static const int unused = 10;
+      static const int used1 = 20; // xpected-warning {{internal linkage}}
+      static const int used2 = 20; // xpected-warning {{internal linkage}}
+      virtual ~A() {}
+    };
+  }
+
+  void a(int,int);
+  A& p(const int&) { static A a; return a; }
+
+  // Check handling of default arguments
+  void b(int = A::unused);
+
+  void tests() {
+    // Basic test
+    a(A::unused, A::unused);
+
+    // Check that nesting an unevaluated or constant-evaluated context does
+    // the right thing.
+    a(A::unused, sizeof(int[10]));
+
+    // Check that the checks work with unevaluated contexts
+    (void)sizeof(p(A::used1));
+    (void)typeid(p(A::used1)); // xpected-note {{used here}}
+
+    // Misc other testing
+    a(A::unused, 1 ? A::used2 : A::used2); // xpected-note {{used here}}
+    b();
+  }
+}
+
+
+namespace OverloadUse {
+  namespace {
+    void f();
+    void f(int); // expected-warning {{function 'OverloadUse::<anonymous namespace>::f' has internal linkage but is not defined}}
+  }
+  template<void x()> void t(int*) { x(); }
+  template<void x(int)> void t(long*) { x(10); } // expected-note {{used here}}
+  void g() { long a; t<f>(&a); }
+}