as constant size arrays. This has slightly different semantics in some insane cases, but allows
us to accept some constructs that GCC does. Continue to be pedantic in -std=c99 and other
modes. This addressed rdar://8733881 - error "variable-sized object may not be initialized"; g++ accepts same code
llvm-svn: 132983
As a bonus, fix the warning for || and && operators; it was emitted even if one of the operands had side effects, e.g:
x || test_logical_foo1();
emitted a bogus "expression result unused" for 'x'.
llvm-svn: 107274
- 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
some more bullet-proofing/enhancements for tryEvaluate. This shouldn't
cause any behavior changes except for handling cases where we were
crashing before and being able to evaluate a few more cases in tryEvaluate.
This should settle the minor mess surrounding r59196.
llvm-svn: 59224
little rude; I figure it's cleaner to just back this out now so
it doesn't get forgotten or mixed up with other checkins.
The modification to isICE is simply wrong; I've added a test that the
change to isICE breaks.
I'm pretty sure the modification to tryEvaluate is also wrong.
At the very least, there's some serious miscommunication going on here,
as this is going in exactly the opposite direction of r59105. My
understanding is that tryEvaluate is not supposed to care about side
effects. That said, a lot of the clients to tryEvaluate are
expecting it to enforce a no-side-effects policy, so we probably need
another method that provides that guarantee.
llvm-svn: 59212
- Evaluation of , operator used bogus assumption that LHS could be
evaluated as an integral expression even though its type is
unspecified.
This change is making isICE very permissive of the LHS in non-evaluated
contexts because it is not clear what predicate we would use to reject
code here. The standard didn't offer me any guidance; opinions?
llvm-svn: 59196
This pushes it a lot closer to being able to deal with most of the stuff
CodeGen's constant expression evaluator knows how to deal with. This
also fixes PR3003.
The test could possibly use some improvement, but this'll work for now.
Test 6 is inspired by PR3003; the other tests are mostly just designed
to exercise the new code. The reason for the funny structure of the
tests is that type fixing for arrays inside of structs is the only place
in Sema that calls tryEvaluate, at least for the moment.
llvm-svn: 59125
Chris Lattner