maxjhandsome
/
llvm-project
forked from OSchip/llvm-project
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Releases Wiki Activity
llvm-project/clang/test/CodeGen/PR8880.c

Ignoring revisions in .git-blame-ignore-revs. Click here to bypass and see the normal blame view.

174 lines
5.4 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

Fix to PR8880 (clang dies processing a for loop) Due to statement expressions supported as GCC extension, it is possible to put 'break' or 'continue' into a loop/switch statement but outside its body, for example: for ( ; ({ if (first) { first = 0; continue; } 0; }); ) This code is rejected by GCC if compiled in C mode but is accepted in C++ code. GCC bug 44715 tracks this discrepancy. Clang used code generation that differs from GCC in both modes: only statement of the third expression of 'for' behaves as if it was inside loop body. This change makes code generation more close to GCC, considering 'break' or 'continue' statement in condition and increment expressions of a loop as it was inside the loop body. It also adds error for the cases when 'break'/'continue' appear outside loop due to this syntax. If code generation differ from GCC, warning is issued. Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2518 llvm-svn: 199897
2014-01-23 23:05:00 +08:00
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -Wno-gcc-compat -emit-llvm -o - %s | FileCheck %s
void pr8880_cg_1(int *iptr) {
Account for calling convention specifiers in function definitions in IR test cases Several tests wouldn't pass when executed on an armv7a_pc_linux triple due to the non-default arm_aapcs calling convention produced on the function definitions in the IR output. Account for this with the application of a little regex. Patch by Ying Yi. llvm-svn: 240971
2015-06-30 01:29:50 +08:00
// CHECK-LABEL: define {{.*}}void @pr8880_cg_1(
Fix to PR8880 (clang dies processing a for loop) Due to statement expressions supported as GCC extension, it is possible to put 'break' or 'continue' into a loop/switch statement but outside its body, for example: for ( ; ({ if (first) { first = 0; continue; } 0; }); ) This code is rejected by GCC if compiled in C mode but is accepted in C++ code. GCC bug 44715 tracks this discrepancy. Clang used code generation that differs from GCC in both modes: only statement of the third expression of 'for' behaves as if it was inside loop body. This change makes code generation more close to GCC, considering 'break' or 'continue' statement in condition and increment expressions of a loop as it was inside the loop body. It also adds error for the cases when 'break'/'continue' appear outside loop due to this syntax. If code generation differ from GCC, warning is issued. Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2518 llvm-svn: 199897
2014-01-23 23:05:00 +08:00
int i, j;
// CHECK: br label %[[OUTER_COND:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
for (i = 2; i != 10 ; i++ )
// CHECK: [[OUTER_COND]]
// CHECK: label %[[OUTER_BODY:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]], label %[[OUTER_END:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
// CHECK: [[OUTER_BODY]]
// CHECK: br label %[[INNER_COND:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
for (j = 3 ; j < 22; (void)({ ++j; break; j;})) {
// CHECK: [[INNER_COND]]
// CHECK: label %[[INNER_BODY:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]], label %[[INNER_END:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
// CHECK: [[INNER_BODY]]
*iptr = 7;
// CHECK: store i32 7,
// CHECK: br label %[[INNER_INC:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
// CHECK: [[INNER_INC]]
// break in 3rd expression of inner loop causes branch to end of inner loop
// CHECK: br label %[[INNER_END:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
// CHECK: [[INNER_END]]
}
// CHECK: br label %[[OUTER_INC:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
// CHECK: [[OUTER_INC]]
// CHECK: br label %[[OUTER_COND]]
// CHECK: [[OUTER_END]]
// CHECK: ret
}
void pr8880_cg_2(int *iptr) {
Account for calling convention specifiers in function definitions in IR test cases Several tests wouldn't pass when executed on an armv7a_pc_linux triple due to the non-default arm_aapcs calling convention produced on the function definitions in the IR output. Account for this with the application of a little regex. Patch by Ying Yi. llvm-svn: 240971
2015-06-30 01:29:50 +08:00
// CHECK-LABEL: define {{.*}}void @pr8880_cg_2(
Fix to PR8880 (clang dies processing a for loop) Due to statement expressions supported as GCC extension, it is possible to put 'break' or 'continue' into a loop/switch statement but outside its body, for example: for ( ; ({ if (first) { first = 0; continue; } 0; }); ) This code is rejected by GCC if compiled in C mode but is accepted in C++ code. GCC bug 44715 tracks this discrepancy. Clang used code generation that differs from GCC in both modes: only statement of the third expression of 'for' behaves as if it was inside loop body. This change makes code generation more close to GCC, considering 'break' or 'continue' statement in condition and increment expressions of a loop as it was inside the loop body. It also adds error for the cases when 'break'/'continue' appear outside loop due to this syntax. If code generation differ from GCC, warning is issued. Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2518 llvm-svn: 199897
2014-01-23 23:05:00 +08:00
int i, j;
// CHECK: br label %[[OUTER_COND:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
for (i = 2; i != 10 ; i++ )
// CHECK: [[OUTER_COND]]
// CHECK: label %[[OUTER_BODY:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]], label %[[OUTER_END:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
// CHECK: [[OUTER_BODY]]
// CHECK: br label %[[INNER_COND:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
for (j = 3 ; j < 22; (void)({ ++j; continue; j;})) {
// CHECK: [[INNER_COND]]
// CHECK: label %[[INNER_BODY:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]], label %[[INNER_END:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
// CHECK: [[INNER_BODY]]
*iptr = 7;
// CHECK: store i32 7,
// CHECK: br label %[[INNER_INC:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
// CHECK: [[INNER_INC]]
// continue in 3rd expression of inner loop causes branch to inc of inner loop
// CHECK: br label %[[INNER_INC]]
// CHECK: [[INNER_END]]
}
// CHECK: br label %[[OUTER_INC:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
// CHECK: [[OUTER_INC]]
// CHECK: br label %[[OUTER_COND]]
// CHECK: [[OUTER_END]]
// CHECK: ret
}
void pr8880_cg_3(int *iptr) {
Account for calling convention specifiers in function definitions in IR test cases Several tests wouldn't pass when executed on an armv7a_pc_linux triple due to the non-default arm_aapcs calling convention produced on the function definitions in the IR output. Account for this with the application of a little regex. Patch by Ying Yi. llvm-svn: 240971
2015-06-30 01:29:50 +08:00
// CHECK-LABEL: define {{.*}}void @pr8880_cg_3(
Fix to PR8880 (clang dies processing a for loop) Due to statement expressions supported as GCC extension, it is possible to put 'break' or 'continue' into a loop/switch statement but outside its body, for example: for ( ; ({ if (first) { first = 0; continue; } 0; }); ) This code is rejected by GCC if compiled in C mode but is accepted in C++ code. GCC bug 44715 tracks this discrepancy. Clang used code generation that differs from GCC in both modes: only statement of the third expression of 'for' behaves as if it was inside loop body. This change makes code generation more close to GCC, considering 'break' or 'continue' statement in condition and increment expressions of a loop as it was inside the loop body. It also adds error for the cases when 'break'/'continue' appear outside loop due to this syntax. If code generation differ from GCC, warning is issued. Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2518 llvm-svn: 199897
2014-01-23 23:05:00 +08:00
int i, j;
// CHECK: br label %[[OUTER_COND:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
for (i = 2 ; i != 10 ; i++ )
// CHECK: [[OUTER_COND]]
// CHECK: label %[[OUTER_BODY:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]], label %[[OUTER_END:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
// CHECK: [[OUTER_BODY]]
// CHECK: br label %[[INNER_COND:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
for (j = 3 ; ({break; j;}); j++) {
// break in 2nd expression of inner loop causes branch to end of inner loop
// CHECK: [[INNER_COND]]
// CHECK: br label %[[INNER_END:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
// CHECK: label %[[INNER_BODY:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]], label %[[INNER_END:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
// CHECK: [[INNER_BODY]]
*iptr = 7;
// CHECK: store i32 7,
// CHECK: br label %[[INNER_INC:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
// CHECK: [[INNER_INC]]
// CHECK: br label %[[INNER_COND]]
}
// CHECK: [[INNER_END]]
// CHECK: br label %[[OUTER_INC:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
// CHECK: [[OUTER_INC]]
// CHECK: br label %[[OUTER_COND]]
// CHECK: [[OUTER_END]]
// CHECK: ret
}
void pr8880_cg_4(int *iptr) {
Account for calling convention specifiers in function definitions in IR test cases Several tests wouldn't pass when executed on an armv7a_pc_linux triple due to the non-default arm_aapcs calling convention produced on the function definitions in the IR output. Account for this with the application of a little regex. Patch by Ying Yi. llvm-svn: 240971
2015-06-30 01:29:50 +08:00
// CHECK-LABEL: define {{.*}}void @pr8880_cg_4(
Fix to PR8880 (clang dies processing a for loop) Due to statement expressions supported as GCC extension, it is possible to put 'break' or 'continue' into a loop/switch statement but outside its body, for example: for ( ; ({ if (first) { first = 0; continue; } 0; }); ) This code is rejected by GCC if compiled in C mode but is accepted in C++ code. GCC bug 44715 tracks this discrepancy. Clang used code generation that differs from GCC in both modes: only statement of the third expression of 'for' behaves as if it was inside loop body. This change makes code generation more close to GCC, considering 'break' or 'continue' statement in condition and increment expressions of a loop as it was inside the loop body. It also adds error for the cases when 'break'/'continue' appear outside loop due to this syntax. If code generation differ from GCC, warning is issued. Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2518 llvm-svn: 199897
2014-01-23 23:05:00 +08:00
int i, j;
// CHECK: br label %[[OUTER_COND:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
for (i = 2 ; i != 10 ; i++ )
// CHECK: [[OUTER_COND]]
// CHECK: label %[[OUTER_BODY:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]], label %[[OUTER_END:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
// CHECK: [[OUTER_BODY]]
// CHECK: br label %[[INNER_COND:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
for (j = 3 ; ({continue; j;}); j++) {
// continue in 2nd expression of inner loop causes branch to inc of inner loop
// CHECK: [[INNER_COND]]
// CHECK: br label %[[INNER_INC:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
// CHECK: label %[[INNER_BODY:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]], label %[[INNER_END:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
// CHECK: [[INNER_BODY]]
*iptr = 7;
// CHECK: store i32 7,
// CHECK: br label %[[INNER_INC]]
// CHECK: [[INNER_INC]]
// CHECK: br label %[[INNER_COND]]
}
// CHECK: [[INNER_END]]
// CHECK: br label %[[OUTER_INC:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
// CHECK: [[OUTER_INC]]
// CHECK: br label %[[OUTER_COND]]
// CHECK: [[OUTER_END]]
// CHECK: ret
}
void pr8880_cg_5(int x, int *iptr) {
Account for calling convention specifiers in function definitions in IR test cases Several tests wouldn't pass when executed on an armv7a_pc_linux triple due to the non-default arm_aapcs calling convention produced on the function definitions in the IR output. Account for this with the application of a little regex. Patch by Ying Yi. llvm-svn: 240971
2015-06-30 01:29:50 +08:00
// CHECK-LABEL: define {{.*}}void @pr8880_cg_5(
Fix to PR8880 (clang dies processing a for loop) Due to statement expressions supported as GCC extension, it is possible to put 'break' or 'continue' into a loop/switch statement but outside its body, for example: for ( ; ({ if (first) { first = 0; continue; } 0; }); ) This code is rejected by GCC if compiled in C mode but is accepted in C++ code. GCC bug 44715 tracks this discrepancy. Clang used code generation that differs from GCC in both modes: only statement of the third expression of 'for' behaves as if it was inside loop body. This change makes code generation more close to GCC, considering 'break' or 'continue' statement in condition and increment expressions of a loop as it was inside the loop body. It also adds error for the cases when 'break'/'continue' appear outside loop due to this syntax. If code generation differ from GCC, warning is issued. Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2518 llvm-svn: 199897
2014-01-23 23:05:00 +08:00
int y = 5;
// CHECK: br label %[[OUTER_COND:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
// CHECK: [[OUTER_COND]]
while(--x) {
// CHECK: label %[[OUTER_BODY:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]], label %[[OUTER_END:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
// CHECK: [[OUTER_BODY]]
// CHECK: br label %[[INNER_COND:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
while(({ break; --y; })) {
// CHECK: [[INNER_COND]]
// CHECK: br label %[[INNER_END:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
// CHECK: label %[[INNER_BODY:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]], label %[[INNER_END:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
// CHECK: [[INNER_BODY]]
*iptr = 7;
// CHECK: store i32 7,
}
// CHECK: br label %[[INNER_COND]]
}
// CHECK: [[INNER_END]]
// CHECK: br label %[[OUTER_COND]]
// CHECK: [[OUTER_END]]
// CHECK: ret void
}
void pr8880_cg_6(int x, int *iptr) {
Account for calling convention specifiers in function definitions in IR test cases Several tests wouldn't pass when executed on an armv7a_pc_linux triple due to the non-default arm_aapcs calling convention produced on the function definitions in the IR output. Account for this with the application of a little regex. Patch by Ying Yi. llvm-svn: 240971
2015-06-30 01:29:50 +08:00
// CHECK-LABEL: define {{.*}}void @pr8880_cg_6(
Fix to PR8880 (clang dies processing a for loop) Due to statement expressions supported as GCC extension, it is possible to put 'break' or 'continue' into a loop/switch statement but outside its body, for example: for ( ; ({ if (first) { first = 0; continue; } 0; }); ) This code is rejected by GCC if compiled in C mode but is accepted in C++ code. GCC bug 44715 tracks this discrepancy. Clang used code generation that differs from GCC in both modes: only statement of the third expression of 'for' behaves as if it was inside loop body. This change makes code generation more close to GCC, considering 'break' or 'continue' statement in condition and increment expressions of a loop as it was inside the loop body. It also adds error for the cases when 'break'/'continue' appear outside loop due to this syntax. If code generation differ from GCC, warning is issued. Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2518 llvm-svn: 199897
2014-01-23 23:05:00 +08:00
int y = 5;
// CHECK: br label %[[OUTER_COND:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
// CHECK: [[OUTER_COND]]
while(--x) {
// CHECK: label %[[OUTER_BODY:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]], label %[[OUTER_END:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
// CHECK: [[OUTER_BODY]]
// CHECK: br label %[[INNER_BODY:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
// CHECK: [[INNER_BODY]]
do {
// CHECK: store i32 7,
*iptr = 7;
// CHECK: br label %[[INNER_COND:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
} while(({ break; --y; }));
// CHECK: [[INNER_COND]]
// CHECK: br label %[[INNER_END:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]]
// CHECK: label %[[INNER_BODY:[0-9A-Za-z$._]+]], label %[[INNER_END]]
}
// CHECK: [[INNER_END]]
// CHECK: br label %[[OUTER_COND]]
// CHECK: [[OUTER_END]]
// CHECK: ret void
}