maxjhandsome
/
llvm-project
forked from OSchip/llvm-project
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Releases Wiki Activity
llvm-project/clang/test/CodeGenCXX/condition.cpp

111 lines
2.1 KiB
C++
Raw Normal View History

Update tests to use %clang_cc1 instead of 'clang-cc' or 'clang -cc1'. - This is designed to make it obvious that %clang_cc1 is a "test variable" which is substituted. It is '%clang_cc1' instead of '%clang -cc1' because it can be useful to redefine what gets run as 'clang -cc1' (for example, to set a default target). llvm-svn: 91446
2009-12-16 04:14:24 +08:00
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple x86_64-apple-darwin10 -emit-llvm -o - %s | FileCheck %s
Introduce cleanup scopes for "if" statements in two places: - Outside the "if", to ensure that we destroy the condition variable at the end of the "if" statement rather than at the end of the block containing the "if" statement. - Inside the "then" and "else" branches, so that we emit then- or else-local cleanups at the end of the corresponding block when the block is not a compound statement. To make adding these new cleanup scopes easier (and since switch/do/while will all need the same treatment), added the CleanupScope RAII object to introduce a new cleanup scope and make sure it gets cleaned up. llvm-svn: 89773
2009-11-25 00:43:22 +08:00
void *f();
template <typename T> T* g() {
if (T* t = f())
return t;
return 0;
}
void h() {
void *a = g<void>();
}
struct X {
X();
~X();
operator bool();
};
struct Y {
Y();
~Y();
};
void if_destruct(int z) {
// Verify that the condition variable is destroyed at the end of the
// "if" statement.
// CHECK: call void @_ZN1XC1Ev
// CHECK: call zeroext i1 @_ZN1XcvbEv
if (X x = X()) {
// CHECK: store i32 18
z = 18;
}
// CHECK: call void @_ZN1XD1Ev
// CHECK: store i32 17
z = 17;
// CHECK: call void @_ZN1XC1Ev
if (X x = X())
Y y;
Fix for Release-Asserts. llvm-svn: 93347
2010-01-14 04:57:29 +08:00
// CHECK: br
Introduce cleanup scopes for "if" statements in two places: - Outside the "if", to ensure that we destroy the condition variable at the end of the "if" statement rather than at the end of the block containing the "if" statement. - Inside the "then" and "else" branches, so that we emit then- or else-local cleanups at the end of the corresponding block when the block is not a compound statement. To make adding these new cleanup scopes easier (and since switch/do/while will all need the same treatment), added the CleanupScope RAII object to introduce a new cleanup scope and make sure it gets cleaned up. llvm-svn: 89773
2009-11-25 00:43:22 +08:00
// CHECK: call void @_ZN1YC1Ev
// CHECK: call void @_ZN1YD1Ev
Fix for Release-Asserts. llvm-svn: 93347
2010-01-14 04:57:29 +08:00
// CHECK: br
Introduce cleanup scopes for "if" statements in two places: - Outside the "if", to ensure that we destroy the condition variable at the end of the "if" statement rather than at the end of the block containing the "if" statement. - Inside the "then" and "else" branches, so that we emit then- or else-local cleanups at the end of the corresponding block when the block is not a compound statement. To make adding these new cleanup scopes easier (and since switch/do/while will all need the same treatment), added the CleanupScope RAII object to introduce a new cleanup scope and make sure it gets cleaned up. llvm-svn: 89773
2009-11-25 00:43:22 +08:00
// CHECK: call void @_ZN1XD1Ev
}
Explicitly store the condition variable within switch statements, and make sure that this variable is destroyed when we exit the switch statement. llvm-svn: 89776
2009-11-25 01:07:59 +08:00
struct ConvertibleToInt {
ConvertibleToInt();
~ConvertibleToInt();
operator int();
};
void switch_destruct(int z) {
// CHECK: call void @_ZN16ConvertibleToIntC1Ev
switch (ConvertibleToInt conv = ConvertibleToInt()) {
case 0:
break;
default:
Fix for Release-Asserts. llvm-svn: 93347
2010-01-14 04:57:29 +08:00
// CHECK: {{sw.default:|:3}}
Explicitly store the condition variable within switch statements, and make sure that this variable is destroyed when we exit the switch statement. llvm-svn: 89776
2009-11-25 01:07:59 +08:00
// CHECK: store i32 19
z = 19;
break;
}
Fix for Release-Asserts. llvm-svn: 93347
2010-01-14 04:57:29 +08:00
// CHECK: {{sw.epilog:|:4}}
Explicitly store the condition variable within switch statements, and make sure that this variable is destroyed when we exit the switch statement. llvm-svn: 89776
2009-11-25 01:07:59 +08:00
// CHECK: call void @_ZN16ConvertibleToIntD1Ev
// CHECK: store i32 20
z = 20;
}
Clean up the AST for while loops and fix several problems with cleanups for while loops: 1) Make sure that we destroy the condition variable of a while statement each time through the loop for, e.g., while (shared_ptr<WorkInt> p = getWorkItem()) { // ... } 2) Make sure that we always enter a new cleanup scope for the body of the while loop, even when there is no compound expression, e.g., while (blah) RAIIObject raii(blah+1); llvm-svn: 89800
2009-11-25 05:15:44 +08:00
int foo();
void while_destruct(int z) {
// CHECK: define void @_Z14while_destructi
Fix for Release-Asserts. llvm-svn: 93347
2010-01-14 04:57:29 +08:00
// CHECK: {{while.cond:|:1}}
Clean up the AST for while loops and fix several problems with cleanups for while loops: 1) Make sure that we destroy the condition variable of a while statement each time through the loop for, e.g., while (shared_ptr<WorkInt> p = getWorkItem()) { // ... } 2) Make sure that we always enter a new cleanup scope for the body of the while loop, even when there is no compound expression, e.g., while (blah) RAIIObject raii(blah+1); llvm-svn: 89800
2009-11-25 05:15:44 +08:00
while (X x = X()) {
// CHECK: call void @_ZN1XC1Ev
Fix for Release-Asserts. llvm-svn: 93347
2010-01-14 04:57:29 +08:00
// CHECK: {{while.body:|:3}}
Clean up the AST for while loops and fix several problems with cleanups for while loops: 1) Make sure that we destroy the condition variable of a while statement each time through the loop for, e.g., while (shared_ptr<WorkInt> p = getWorkItem()) { // ... } 2) Make sure that we always enter a new cleanup scope for the body of the while loop, even when there is no compound expression, e.g., while (blah) RAIIObject raii(blah+1); llvm-svn: 89800
2009-11-25 05:15:44 +08:00
// CHECK: store i32 21
z = 21;
Fix for Release-Asserts. llvm-svn: 93347
2010-01-14 04:57:29 +08:00
// CHECK: {{while.cleanup:|:4}}
Clean up the AST for while loops and fix several problems with cleanups for while loops: 1) Make sure that we destroy the condition variable of a while statement each time through the loop for, e.g., while (shared_ptr<WorkInt> p = getWorkItem()) { // ... } 2) Make sure that we always enter a new cleanup scope for the body of the while loop, even when there is no compound expression, e.g., while (blah) RAIIObject raii(blah+1); llvm-svn: 89800
2009-11-25 05:15:44 +08:00
// CHECK: call void @_ZN1XD1Ev
}
Fix for Release-Asserts. llvm-svn: 93347
2010-01-14 04:57:29 +08:00
// CHECK: {{while.end|:6}}
Clean up the AST for while loops and fix several problems with cleanups for while loops: 1) Make sure that we destroy the condition variable of a while statement each time through the loop for, e.g., while (shared_ptr<WorkInt> p = getWorkItem()) { // ... } 2) Make sure that we always enter a new cleanup scope for the body of the while loop, even when there is no compound expression, e.g., while (blah) RAIIObject raii(blah+1); llvm-svn: 89800
2009-11-25 05:15:44 +08:00
// CHECK: store i32 22
z = 22;
}
Eliminate CXXConditionDeclExpr with extreme prejudice. All statements that involve conditions can now hold on to a separate condition declaration (a VarDecl), and will use a DeclRefExpr referring to that VarDecl for the condition expression. ForStmts now have such a VarDecl (I'd missed those in previous commits). Also, since this change reworks the Action interface for if/while/switch/for, use FullExprArg for the full expressions in those expressions, to ensure that we're emitting Note that we are (still) not generating the right cleanups for condition variables in for statements. That will be a follow-on commit. llvm-svn: 89817
2009-11-25 08:27:52 +08:00
void for_destruct(int z) {
// CHECK: define void @_Z12for_destruct
Tweak the code-generation-for-condition-variables test case to get to what we want to test llvm-svn: 89818
2009-11-25 08:29:29 +08:00
// CHECK: call void @_ZN1YC1Ev
for(Y y = Y(); X x = X(); ++z)
Fix for Release-Asserts. llvm-svn: 93347
2010-01-14 04:57:29 +08:00
// CHECK: {{for.cond:|:1}}
Implement proper cleanup semantics for condition variables in for statements, e.g., for(; X x = X(); ) { ... } Daniel or Anders, please review! llvm-svn: 89832
2009-11-25 09:51:31 +08:00
// CHECK: call void @_ZN1XC1Ev
Fix for Release-Asserts. llvm-svn: 93347
2010-01-14 04:57:29 +08:00
// CHECK: {{for.body:|:3}}
Eliminate CXXConditionDeclExpr with extreme prejudice. All statements that involve conditions can now hold on to a separate condition declaration (a VarDecl), and will use a DeclRefExpr referring to that VarDecl for the condition expression. ForStmts now have such a VarDecl (I'd missed those in previous commits). Also, since this change reworks the Action interface for if/while/switch/for, use FullExprArg for the full expressions in those expressions, to ensure that we're emitting Note that we are (still) not generating the right cleanups for condition variables in for statements. That will be a follow-on commit. llvm-svn: 89817
2009-11-25 08:27:52 +08:00
// CHECK: store i32 23
z = 23;
Fix for Release-Asserts. llvm-svn: 93347
2010-01-14 04:57:29 +08:00
// CHECK: {{for.inc:|:4}}
// CHECK: br label %{{for.cond.cleanup|7}}
// CHECK: {{for.cond.cleanup:|:7}}
Implement proper cleanup semantics for condition variables in for statements, e.g., for(; X x = X(); ) { ... } Daniel or Anders, please review! llvm-svn: 89832
2009-11-25 09:51:31 +08:00
// CHECK: call void @_ZN1XD1Ev
Fix for Release-Asserts. llvm-svn: 93347
2010-01-14 04:57:29 +08:00
// CHECK: {{for.end:|:9}}
Tweak the code-generation-for-condition-variables test case to get to what we want to test llvm-svn: 89818
2009-11-25 08:29:29 +08:00
// CHECK: call void @_ZN1YD1Ev
Eliminate CXXConditionDeclExpr with extreme prejudice. All statements that involve conditions can now hold on to a separate condition declaration (a VarDecl), and will use a DeclRefExpr referring to that VarDecl for the condition expression. ForStmts now have such a VarDecl (I'd missed those in previous commits). Also, since this change reworks the Action interface for if/while/switch/for, use FullExprArg for the full expressions in those expressions, to ensure that we're emitting Note that we are (still) not generating the right cleanups for condition variables in for statements. That will be a follow-on commit. llvm-svn: 89817
2009-11-25 08:27:52 +08:00
// CHECK: store i32 24
z = 24;
}