Clean up trivial default constructors now.

hasTrivialDefaultConstructor() really really means it now.

Also implement a fun standards bug regarding aggregates. Doug, if you'd
like, I can un-implement that bug if you think it is truly a defect.

The bug is that non-special-member constructors are never considered
user-provided, so the following is an aggregate:

struct foo {
  foo(int);
};

It's kind of bad, but the solution isn't obvious - should

struct foo {
  foo (int) = delete;
};

be an aggregate or not?

Lastly, add a missing initialization to FunctionDecl.

git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@131101 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8

1 files changed, 3 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/test/SemaCXX/aggregate-initialization.cpp b/test/SemaCXX/aggregate-initialization.cpp
index 4c34447940..b9e69b00b7 100644
--- a/test/SemaCXX/aggregate-initialization.cpp
+++ b/test/SemaCXX/aggregate-initialization.cpp
@@ -2,6 +2,8 @@
 
 // Verify that we can't initialize non-aggregates with an initializer
 // list.
+// FIXME: Note that due to a (likely) standard bug, this is technically an
+//        aggregate.
 struct NonAggr1 {
   NonAggr1(int) { }
 
@@ -22,7 +24,7 @@ struct NonAggr4 {
   virtual void f();
 };
 
-NonAggr1 na1 = { 17 }; // expected-error{{non-aggregate type 'NonAggr1' cannot be initialized with an initializer list}}
+NonAggr1 na1 = { 17 };
 NonAggr2 na2 = { 17 }; // expected-error{{non-aggregate type 'NonAggr2' cannot be initialized with an initializer list}}
 NonAggr3 na3 = { 17 }; // expected-error{{non-aggregate type 'NonAggr3' cannot be initialized with an initializer list}}
 NonAggr4 na4 = { 17 }; // expected-error{{non-aggregate type 'NonAggr4' cannot be initialized with an initializer list}}