Move away from the poor "abstraction" I added to Type. John argued

effectively that this abstraction simply doesn't exist. That is
highlighted by the fact that by using it we were papering over a more
serious error in this warning: the fact that we warned for *invalid*
constructs involving member pointers and block pointers.

I've fixed the obvious issues with the warning here, but this is
confirming an original suspicion that this warning's implementation is
flawed. I'm looking into how we can implement this more reasonably. WIP
on that front.

llvm-svn: 133425

1 files changed, 20 insertions, 8 deletions

diff --git a/clang/test/SemaCXX/null_in_arithmetic_ops.cpp b/clang/test/SemaCXX/null_in_arithmetic_ops.cpp
index 78c76e7e4c2..9665c3959e7 100644
--- a/clang/test/SemaCXX/null_in_arithmetic_ops.cpp
+++ b/clang/test/SemaCXX/null_in_arithmetic_ops.cpp
@@ -4,6 +4,12 @@
 void f() {
   int a;
   bool b;
+  void (^c)();
+  class X;
+  void (X::*d) ();
+  extern void e();
+  int f[2];
+  const void *v;
 
   a = 0 ? NULL + a : a + NULL; // expected-warning 2{{use of NULL in arithmetic operation}}
   a = 0 ? NULL - a : a - NULL; // expected-warning 2{{use of NULL in arithmetic operation}}
@@ -18,6 +24,19 @@ void f() {
   a = 0 ? NULL | a : a | NULL; // expected-warning 2{{use of NULL in arithmetic operation}}
   a = 0 ? NULL ^ a : a ^ NULL; // expected-warning 2{{use of NULL in arithmetic operation}}
 
+  // Check for warnings or errors when doing arithmetic on pointers and other
+  // types.
+  v = 0 ? NULL + &a : &a + NULL; // expected-warning 2{{use of NULL in arithmetic operation}}
+  v = 0 ? NULL + c : c + NULL; // \
+    expected-error {{invalid operands to binary expression ('long' and 'void (^)()')}} \
+    expected-error {{invalid operands to binary expression ('void (^)()' and 'long')}}
+  v = 0 ? NULL + d : d + NULL; // \
+    expected-error {{invalid operands to binary expression ('long' and 'void (X::*)()')}} \
+    expected-error {{invalid operands to binary expression ('void (X::*)()' and 'long')}}
+  v = 0 ? NULL + e : e + NULL; // expected-error 2{{arithmetic on pointer to function type}}
+  v = 0 ? NULL + f : f + NULL; // expected-warning 2{{use of NULL in arithmetic operation}}
+  v = 0 ? NULL + "f" : "f" + NULL; // expected-warning 2{{use of NULL in arithmetic operation}}
+
   // Using two NULLs should only give one error instead of two.
   a = NULL + NULL; // expected-warning{{use of NULL in arithmetic operation}}
   a = NULL - NULL; // expected-warning{{use of NULL in arithmetic operation}}
@@ -65,17 +84,10 @@ void f() {
 
   b = ((NULL)) != a;  // expected-warning{{use of NULL in arithmetic operation}}
 
-  void (^c)();
+  // Check that even non-standard pointers don't warn.
   b = c == NULL || NULL == c || c != NULL || NULL != c;
-
-  class X;
-  void (X::*d) ();
   b = d == NULL || NULL == d || d != NULL || NULL != d;
-
-  extern void e();
   b = e == NULL || NULL == e || e != NULL || NULL != e;
-
-  int f[2];
   b = f == NULL || NULL == f || f != NULL || NULL != f;
   b = "f" == NULL || NULL == "f" || "f" != NULL || NULL != "f";
 }