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
cases that demonstrates exactly why this does indeed apply in 0x mode.
If isPOD is currently broken in 0x mode, we should fix that directly
rather than papering over it here.
llvm-svn: 130007
in the scope checker. With that done, turn an indirect goto into a
protected scope into a hard error; otherwise IR generation has to start
worrying about declarations not dominating their scopes, as exemplified
in PR8473.
If this really affects anyone, I can probably adjust this to only hard-error
on possible indirect gotos into VLA scopes rather than arbitrary scopes.
But we'll see how people cope with the aggressive change on the marginal
feature.
llvm-svn: 117539
about the permitted scopes. Specifically:
1) Permit labels and gotos to appear after a prologue of variable initializations.
2) Permit indirect gotos to jump out of scopes that don't require cleanup.
3) Diagnose possible attempts to indirect-jump out of scopes that do require
cleanup.
This requires a substantial reinvention of the algorithm for checking indirect
goto. The current algorithm is Omega(M*N), with M = the number of unique
scopes being jumped from and N = the number of unique scopes being jumped to,
with an additional factor that is probably (worst-case) linear in the depth
of scopes. Thus the entire thing is likely cubic given some truly bizarre
ill-formed code; on well-formed code the additional factor collapses to
an amortized constant (when amortized over the entire function) and so
the algorithm is quadratic. Even this requires every label to appear in
its own scope, which would be very unusual for indirect-goto code (and
extremely unlikely for well-formed code); it is far more likely that
all labels will be in the same scope and so the algorithm becomes linear.
For such a marginal feature, I am fairly happy with this result.
(this is using JumpDiagnostic's definition of scope, where successive
variables in a block appear in their own scope)
llvm-svn: 103536
Richard Smith