Don't assume that a valid expression for the first part of a for-statement

is non-null when diagnosing a broken attempt to write a for-range-statement.

llvm-svn: 151081

1 files changed, 11 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/clang/test/SemaCXX/for-range-examples.cpp b/clang/test/SemaCXX/for-range-examples.cpp
index 868de9d4f0e..8bda51062a4 100644
--- a/clang/test/SemaCXX/for-range-examples.cpp
+++ b/clang/test/SemaCXX/for-range-examples.cpp
@@ -169,3 +169,14 @@ namespace test3 {
   template<typename T> void f() { for (auto a : A()) {} }
   void g() { f<int>(); }
 }
+
+namespace test4 {
+  void f() {
+    int y;
+
+    // Make sure these don't crash. Better diagnostics would be nice.
+    for (: {1, 2, 3}) {} // expected-error {{expected expression}} expected-error {{expected ';'}}
+    for (x : {1, 2, 3}) {} // expected-error {{undeclared identifier}} expected-error {{expected ';'}}
+    for (y : {1, 2, 3}) {} // expected-error {{must declare a variable}} expected-warning {{result unused}}
+  }
+}