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

23 lines
386 B
C++
Raw Normal View History

Implement jump checking for initialized c++ variables, implementing a fixme and PR6451. Only perform jump checking if the containing function has no errors, and add the infrastructure needed to do this. On the testcase in the PR, we produce: t.cc:6:3: error: illegal goto into protected scope goto later; ^ t.cc:7:5: note: jump bypasses variable initialization X x; ^ llvm-svn: 97497
2010-03-02 04:59:53 +08:00
// RUN: %clang_cc1 %s -fsyntax-only -pedantic -verify
This is valid in C++. void foo() { return foo(); } llvm-svn: 61188
2008-12-18 10:03:48 +08:00
void foo() {
return foo();
}
Implement jump checking for initialized c++ variables, implementing a fixme and PR6451. Only perform jump checking if the containing function has no errors, and add the infrastructure needed to do this. On the testcase in the PR, we produce: t.cc:6:3: error: illegal goto into protected scope goto later; ^ t.cc:7:5: note: jump bypasses variable initialization X x; ^ llvm-svn: 97497
2010-03-02 04:59:53 +08:00
// PR6451 - C++ Jump checking
struct X {
X();
};
void test2() {
Modify how the -verify flag works. Currently, the verification string and diagnostic message are compared. If either is a substring of the other, then no error is given. This gives rise to an unexpected case: // expect-error{{candidate function has different number of parameters}} will match the following error messages from Clang: candidate function has different number of parameters (expected 1 but has 2) candidate function has different number of parameters It will also match these other error messages: candidate function function has different number of parameters number of parameters This patch will change so that the verification string must be a substring of the diagnostic message before accepting. Also, all the failing tests from this change have been corrected. Some stats from this cleanup: 87 - removed extra spaces around verification strings 70 - wording updates to diagnostics 40 - extra leading or trailing characters (typos, unmatched parens or quotes) 35 - diagnostic level was included (error:, warning:, or note:) 18 - flag name put in the warning (-Wprotocol) llvm-svn: 146619
2011-12-15 08:38:15 +08:00
goto later; // expected-error {{goto into protected scope}}
Implement jump checking for initialized c++ variables, implementing a fixme and PR6451. Only perform jump checking if the containing function has no errors, and add the infrastructure needed to do this. On the testcase in the PR, we produce: t.cc:6:3: error: illegal goto into protected scope goto later; ^ t.cc:7:5: note: jump bypasses variable initialization X x; ^ llvm-svn: 97497
2010-03-02 04:59:53 +08:00
X x; // expected-note {{jump bypasses variable initialization}}
later:
;
}
In C++98/03, an uninitialized variable that has POD class type will be uninitialized. This seems not to be the case in C++0x, where we still call the (trivial) default constructor for a POD class (!). Previously, we had implemented only the C++0x rules; now we implement both. Fixes PR6536. llvm-svn: 97928
2010-03-08 10:45:10 +08:00
namespace PR6536 {
struct A {};
void a() { goto out; A x; out: return; }
}