Factor out (some of) the checking for invalid forms of pointer

arithmetic into a couple of common routines. Use these to make the
messages more consistent in the various contexts, especially in terms of
consistently diagnosing binary operators with invalid types on both the
left- and right-hand side. Also, improve the grammar and wording of the
messages some, handling both two pointers and two (different) types.

The wording of function pointer arithmetic diagnostics still strikes me
as poorly phrased, and I worry this makes them slightly more awkward if
more consistent. I'm hoping to fix that with a follow-on patch and test
case that will also make them more helpful when a typedef or template
type parameter makes the type completely opaque.

Suggestions on better wording are very welcome, thanks to Richard Smith
for some initial help on that front.

llvm-svn: 133906

1 files changed, 1 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/clang/test/Sema/pointer-subtract-compat.c b/clang/test/Sema/pointer-subtract-compat.c
index 70340c6a4cd..b801f81473b 100644
--- a/clang/test/Sema/pointer-subtract-compat.c
+++ b/clang/test/Sema/pointer-subtract-compat.c
@@ -7,5 +7,5 @@ int a(char* a, rchar* b) {
 
 // <rdar://problem/6520707> 
 void f0(void (*fp)(void)) {
-  int x = fp - fp; // expected-warning{{arithmetic on pointer to function type 'void (*)(void)' is a GNU extension}}
+  int x = fp - fp; // expected-warning{{arithmetic on pointers to the function type 'void (void)' is a GNU extension}}
 }