Fix tests to account for new warning "expected ';' at end of declaration list". Sorry, folks!

llvm-svn: 127188

clang/test/Analysis/string.c

@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ label:
 }
 
 void strlen_subregion() {
-  struct two_strings { char a[2], b[2] };
+  struct two_strings { char a[2], b[2]; };
   extern void use_two_strings(struct two_strings *);
 
   struct two_strings z;
@@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ label:
 }
 
 void strnlen_subregion() {
-  struct two_stringsn { char a[2], b[2] };
+  struct two_stringsn { char a[2], b[2]; };
   extern void use_two_stringsn(struct two_stringsn *);
 
   struct two_stringsn z;

clang/test/Sema/align-x86.c

@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ short chk1[__alignof__(g3) == 8 ? 1 : -1];
 short chk2[__alignof__(_Complex double) == 8 ? 1 : -1];
 
 // PR6362
-struct __attribute__((packed)) {unsigned int a} g4;
+struct __attribute__((packed)) {unsigned int a;} g4;
 short chk1[__alignof__(g4) == 1 ? 1 : -1];
 short chk2[__alignof__(g4.a) == 1 ? 1 : -1];
 

clang/test/Sema/anonymous-struct-union.c

@@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ struct {}; // expected-warning{{declaration does not declare anything}}
 struct s2 {
   union {
     int a;
-  }
+  } // expected-warning{{expected ';' at end of declaration list}}
 }; // expected-error{{expected member name or ';' after declaration specifiers}}
 
 // Make sure we don't a.k.a. anonymous structs.

clang/test/Sema/arm-layout.c

@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ check(s3_offset_0, __builtin_offsetof(struct s3, field0) == 0);
 check(s3_offset_1, __builtin_offsetof(struct s3, field2) == 7);
 
 struct s4 {
-  int field0 : 4
+  int field0 : 4;
 };
 #ifdef __ARM_EABI__
 check(s4_size, sizeof(struct s4) == 4);

clang/test/Sema/const-eval.c

@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ EVAL_EXPR(29, (_Complex int)1 ? 1 : -1)
 
 
 // PR4027 + rdar://6808859
-struct a { int x, y };
+struct a { int x, y; };
 static struct a V2 = (struct a)(struct a){ 1, 2};
 static const struct a V1 = (struct a){ 1, 2};
 

clang/test/Sema/missing-field-initializers.c

@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ struct Three data[] = {
   { { .two = { 1.0f, 2.0f } } } // expected-warning {{missing field 'e' initializer}}
 };
 
-struct { int:5; int a; int:5; int b; int:5 } noNamedImplicit[] = {
+struct { int:5; int a; int:5; int b; int:5; } noNamedImplicit[] = {
   { 1, 2 },
   { 1 } // expected-warning {{missing field 'b' initializer}}
 };

clang/test/Sema/warn-gnu-designators.c

@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
 // RUN: %clang_cc1 -Wno-gnu-designator -verify %s
-struct { int x, y, z[12] } value = { x:17, .z [3 ... 5] = 7 };
+struct { int x, y, z[12]; } value = { x:17, .z [3 ... 5] = 7 };

clang/test/SemaObjC/sizeof-interface.m

@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ int g2[ sizeof(I0)   // expected-error {{invalid application of 'sizeof' to inte
 @synthesize p0 = _p0;
 @end
 
-typedef struct { @defs(I1) } I1_defs; // expected-error {{invalid application of @defs in non-fragile ABI}}
+typedef struct { @defs(I1); } I1_defs; // expected-error {{invalid application of @defs in non-fragile ABI}}
 
 // FIXME: This is currently broken due to the way the record layout we
 // create is tied to whether we have seen synthesized properties. Ugh.