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

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

50 lines
2.5 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

Enable use of _Static_assert inside structs and unions in C11 mode (as per C11 6.7.2.1p1). llvm-svn: 178632
2013-04-03 17:46:04 +08:00
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c11 -fsyntax-only -verify %s
Replace some custom C11 extension warnings with the generic warning. llvm-svn: 370066
2019-08-27 22:41:39 +08:00
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c99 -pedantic -fsyntax-only -verify=expected,ext %s
[c++20] Implement semantic restrictions for C++20 designated initializers. This has some interesting interactions with our existing extensions to support C99 designated initializers as an extension in C++. Those are resolved as follows: * We continue to permit the full breadth of C99 designated initializers in C++, with the exception that we disallow a partial overwrite of an initializer with a non-trivially-destructible type. (Full overwrite is OK, because we won't run the first initializer at all.) * The C99 extensions are disallowed in SFINAE contexts and during overload resolution, where they could change the meaning of valid programs. * C++20 disallows reordering of initializers. We only check for that for the simple cases that the C++20 rules permit (designators of the form '.field_name =' and continue to allow reordering in other cases). It would be nice to improve this behavior in future. * All C99 designated initializer extensions produce a warning by default in C++20 mode. People are going to learn the C++ rules based on what Clang diagnoses, so it's important we diagnose these properly by default. * In C++ <= 17, we apply the C++20 rules rather than the C99 rules, and so still diagnose C99 extensions as described above. We continue to accept designated C++20-compatible initializers in C++ <= 17 silently by default (but naturally still reject under -pedantic-errors). This is not a complete implementation of P0329R4. In particular, that paper introduces new non-C99-compatible syntax { .field { init } }, and we do not support that yet. This is based on a previous patch by Don Hinton, though I've made substantial changes when addressing the above interactions. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59754 llvm-svn: 370544
2019-08-31 06:52:55 +08:00
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -xc++ -std=c++11 -pedantic -fsyntax-only -verify=expected,ext,cxx %s
C1X: implement static asserts llvm-svn: 129555
2011-04-15 08:35:57 +08:00
Replace some custom C11 extension warnings with the generic warning. llvm-svn: 370066
2019-08-27 22:41:39 +08:00
_Static_assert("foo", "string is nonzero"); // ext-warning {{'_Static_assert' is a C11 extension}}
Enable use of _Static_assert inside structs and unions in C11 mode (as per C11 6.7.2.1p1). llvm-svn: 178632
2013-04-03 17:46:04 +08:00
#ifndef __cplusplus
// expected-error@-2 {{static_assert expression is not an integral constant expression}}
#endif
C1X: implement static asserts llvm-svn: 129555
2011-04-15 08:35:57 +08:00
Replace some custom C11 extension warnings with the generic warning. llvm-svn: 370066
2019-08-27 22:41:39 +08:00
_Static_assert(1, "1 is nonzero"); // ext-warning {{'_Static_assert' is a C11 extension}}
_Static_assert(0, "0 is nonzero"); // expected-error {{static_assert failed "0 is nonzero"}} \
// ext-warning {{'_Static_assert' is a C11 extension}}
C1X: implement static asserts llvm-svn: 129555
2011-04-15 08:35:57 +08:00
void foo(void) {
Replace some custom C11 extension warnings with the generic warning. llvm-svn: 370066
2019-08-27 22:41:39 +08:00
_Static_assert(1, "1 is nonzero"); // ext-warning {{'_Static_assert' is a C11 extension}}
_Static_assert(0, "0 is nonzero"); // expected-error {{static_assert failed "0 is nonzero"}} \
// ext-warning {{'_Static_assert' is a C11 extension}}
C1X: implement static asserts llvm-svn: 129555
2011-04-15 08:35:57 +08:00
}
Made the "expected string literal" diagnostic more expressive llvm-svn: 168267
2012-11-18 03:16:52 +08:00
Replace some custom C11 extension warnings with the generic warning. llvm-svn: 370066
2019-08-27 22:41:39 +08:00
_Static_assert(1, invalid); // expected-error {{expected string literal for diagnostic message in static_assert}} \
// ext-warning {{'_Static_assert' is a C11 extension}}
Enable use of _Static_assert inside structs and unions in C11 mode (as per C11 6.7.2.1p1). llvm-svn: 178632
2013-04-03 17:46:04 +08:00
struct A {
int a;
Replace some custom C11 extension warnings with the generic warning. llvm-svn: 370066
2019-08-27 22:41:39 +08:00
_Static_assert(1, "1 is nonzero"); // ext-warning {{'_Static_assert' is a C11 extension}}
_Static_assert(0, "0 is nonzero"); // expected-error {{static_assert failed "0 is nonzero"}} \
// ext-warning {{'_Static_assert' is a C11 extension}}
Enable use of _Static_assert inside structs and unions in C11 mode (as per C11 6.7.2.1p1). llvm-svn: 178632
2013-04-03 17:46:04 +08:00
};
#ifdef __cplusplus
#define ASSERT_IS_TYPE(T) __is_same(T, T)
#else
#define ASSERT_IS_TYPE(T) __builtin_types_compatible_p(T, T)
#endif
#define UNION(T1, T2) union { \
__typeof__(T1) one; \
__typeof__(T2) two; \
_Static_assert(ASSERT_IS_TYPE(T1), "T1 is not a type"); \
_Static_assert(ASSERT_IS_TYPE(T2), "T2 is not a type"); \
_Static_assert(sizeof(T1) == sizeof(T2), "type size mismatch"); \
}
Replace some custom C11 extension warnings with the generic warning. llvm-svn: 370066
2019-08-27 22:41:39 +08:00
typedef UNION(unsigned, struct A) U1; // ext-warning 3 {{'_Static_assert' is a C11 extension}}
[c++20] Implement semantic restrictions for C++20 designated initializers. This has some interesting interactions with our existing extensions to support C99 designated initializers as an extension in C++. Those are resolved as follows: * We continue to permit the full breadth of C99 designated initializers in C++, with the exception that we disallow a partial overwrite of an initializer with a non-trivially-destructible type. (Full overwrite is OK, because we won't run the first initializer at all.) * The C99 extensions are disallowed in SFINAE contexts and during overload resolution, where they could change the meaning of valid programs. * C++20 disallows reordering of initializers. We only check for that for the simple cases that the C++20 rules permit (designators of the form '.field_name =' and continue to allow reordering in other cases). It would be nice to improve this behavior in future. * All C99 designated initializer extensions produce a warning by default in C++20 mode. People are going to learn the C++ rules based on what Clang diagnoses, so it's important we diagnose these properly by default. * In C++ <= 17, we apply the C++20 rules rather than the C99 rules, and so still diagnose C99 extensions as described above. We continue to accept designated C++20-compatible initializers in C++ <= 17 silently by default (but naturally still reject under -pedantic-errors). This is not a complete implementation of P0329R4. In particular, that paper introduces new non-C99-compatible syntax { .field { init } }, and we do not support that yet. This is based on a previous patch by Don Hinton, though I've made substantial changes when addressing the above interactions. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59754 llvm-svn: 370544
2019-08-31 06:52:55 +08:00
UNION(char[2], short) u2 = { .one = { 'a', 'b' } }; // ext-warning 3 {{'_Static_assert' is a C11 extension}} cxx-warning {{designated initializers are a C++20 extension}}
Replace some custom C11 extension warnings with the generic warning. llvm-svn: 370066
2019-08-27 22:41:39 +08:00
typedef UNION(char, short) U3; // expected-error {{static_assert failed due to requirement 'sizeof(char) == sizeof(short)' "type size mismatch"}} \
// ext-warning 3 {{'_Static_assert' is a C11 extension}}
typedef UNION(float, 0.5f) U4; // expected-error {{expected a type}} \
// ext-warning 3 {{'_Static_assert' is a C11 extension}}