Ignore trailing NullStmts in compound expressions when determining the result type and value. This is to match the GCC behavior which ignores semicolons at the end of compound expressions.
Patch by Dominic Ferreira.
llvm-svn: 365498
Summary:
There isn't anything inherently wrong with returning a label from a
statement expression. In practice, the Linux kernel uses this pattern to
materialize PCs.
Fixes PR38569
Reviewers: niravd, rsmith, nickdesaulniers
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50805
llvm-svn: 340101
We already check that statement expressions are in a function or block,
but we didn't do anything with that information. Now we use that
DeclContext for the duration of the statement expression. Otherwise,
we'd treat statement expression locals as static data members and go
into the weeds.
llvm-svn: 235335
Commit r213935 added additional validation of register constants/size for AArch64 and because these tests which contain Intel assembler the new validation caused these tests to fail when the default target is changed to an AArch64 target.
llvm-svn: 214706
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
This patch wasn't reviewed, and isn't correctly preserving the behaviors
relied upon by QT. I don't have a direct example of fallout, but it
should go through the standard code review process. For example, it
should never have removed the QT test case that was added when fixing
those users.
llvm-svn: 193174
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; }); )
Such usage must be diagnosed as an error, GCC rejects it. To recognize
this and similar patterns the flags BreakScope and ContinueScope are
temporarily turned off while parsing condition expression.
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1762
llvm-svn: 193073
* if, switch, range-based for: warn if semicolon is on the same line.
* for, while: warn if semicolon is on the same line and either next
statement is compound statement or next statement has more
indentation.
Replacing the semicolon with {} or moving the semicolon to the next
line will always silence the warning.
Tests from SemaCXX/if-empty-body.cpp merged into SemaCXX/warn-empty-body.cpp.
llvm-svn: 150515
destination type for initialization, assignment, parameter-passing,
etc. The main issue fixed here is that we used rather confusing
wording for diagnostics such as
t.c:2:9: warning: initializing 'char const [2]' discards qualifiers,
expected 'char *' [-pedantic]
char *name = __func__;
^ ~~~~~~~~
We're not initializing a 'char const [2]', we're initializing a 'char
*' with an expression of type 'char const [2]'. Similar problems
existed for other diagnostics in this area, so I've normalized them all
with more precise descriptive text to say what we're
initializing/converting/assigning/etc. from and to. The warning for
the code above is now:
t.c:2:9: warning: initializing 'char *' from an expression of type
'char const [2]' discards qualifiers [-pedantic]
char *name = __func__;
^ ~~~~~~~~
Fixes <rdar://problem/7447179>.
llvm-svn: 100832
- 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
Aaron Ballman