| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 216485
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
feature is c11 about nested struct declarations must have
struct-declarator-list. Without this change, code
which was meant for c99 breaks. rdar://18125536
llvm-svn: 216469
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
declaration to our list of special cases.
llvm-svn: 215520
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We had two bugs:
- We wouldn't properly warn when a struct/union/enum was mentioned
inside of a record definition if no declarator was provided. We
should have mentioned that this declaration declares nothing.
- We didn't properly support Microsoft's extension where certain
declspecs without declarators would act as anonymous structs/unions.
* We completely ignored the case where such a declspec could be a
union.
* We didn't properly handle the case where a record was defined inside
another record:
struct X {
int a;
struct Y {
int b;
};
};
llvm-svn: 215347
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Array declarators involving the static keyword take on two forms:
D[ static type-qualifier-listopt assignment-expression ]
D[ type-qualifier-list static assignment-expression ]
Raise a diagnostic if the assignment-expression is missing.
This fixes PR20584.
llvm-svn: 215187
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
void knrNoSemi(i) int i { }
Adherents of The C Programming Language unfortunate enough to miss a semicolon
as above would be met with a cascade of errors spanning the remainder of the
TU.
This patch introduces a beautiful parse error recovery, complete with helpful
FixIt to restore sanity.
Before (output redacted for brevity):
error: 'error' diagnostics seen but not expected:
File declarators.c Line 119: declaration does not declare a parameter
File declarators.c Line 123: declaration does not declare a parameter
File declarators.c Line 127: parameter named 'func_E12' is missing
File declarators.c Line 127: expected ';' at end of declaration
File declarators.c Line 133: parameter named 'func_E13' is missing
File declarators.c Line 133: expected ';' at end of declaration
File declarators.c Line 139: parameter named 'func_E14' is missing
File declarators.c Line 139: expected ';' at end of declaration
File declarators.c Line 145: parameter named 'func_E15' is missing
File declarators.c Line 145: expected ';' at end of declaration
File declarators.c Line 150: expected function body after function declarator
File declarators.c Line 119: declaration of 'enum E11' will not be visible outside of this function
File declarators.c Line 123: declaration of 'enum E12' will not be visible outside of this function
File declarators.c Line 133: ISO C forbids forward references to 'enum' types
File declarators.c Line 133: declaration of 'enum E13' will not be visible outside of this function
File declarators.c Line 139: ISO C forbids forward references to 'enum' types
File declarators.c Line 139: declaration of 'enum E14' will not be visible outside of this function
File declarators.c Line 145: ISO C forbids forward references to 'enum' types
File declarators.c Line 145: declaration of 'enum E15' will not be visible outside of this function
...
After:
declarators.c:103:24: error: expected ';' at end of declaration
void knrNoSemi(i) int i { }
^
;
Patch found in a sealed envelope dated 1978 with the message "Do not open until
January 2014"
llvm-svn: 198540
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Previously any error in enum definition body stopped parsing it. With this
change parser tries to recover from errors.
The patch fixes PR10982.
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2018
llvm-svn: 198259
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D586
llvm-svn: 183609
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
';'.
llvm-svn: 159549
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This allows
us to improve this diagnostic (telling us to insert another ")":
t.c:2:19: error: expected ';' at end of declaration
int x = 4+(5-12));
^
;
to:
t.c:2:19: error: extraneous ')' before ';'
int x = 4+(5-12));
^
...telling us to remove the ")". This is PR12595. There are more uses of ExpectAndConsumeSemi
that could be switched over, but I don't hit them on a daily basis :)
llvm-svn: 155759
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In a few cases clang emitted a rather content-free diagnostic: 'parse error'.
This change replaces two actual cases (template parameter parsing and K&R
parameter declaration parsing) with more specific diagnostics and removes a
third dead case of this in the BalancedDelimiterTracker (the ctor already
checked the invariant necessary to ensure that the diag::parse_error was never
actually used).
llvm-svn: 154224
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
different
behavior in C than in C++ (which is what the original test case was).
llvm-svn: 112199
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
it might previously have been a tag TST.
llvm-svn: 112196
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
'expected ';' after top level declarator' which is much less vague.
llvm-svn: 108106
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
a function prototype is followed by a declarator if we
aren't parsing a K&R style identifier list.
Also, avoid skipping randomly after a declaration if a
semicolon is missing. Before we'd get:
t.c:3:1: error: expected function body after function declarator
void bar();
^
Now we get:
t.c:1:11: error: invalid token after top level declarator
void foo()
^
;
llvm-svn: 108105
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
lead to heartache. Fixes <rdar://problem/8044088>.
llvm-svn: 105178
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
destination type for initialization, assignment, parameter-passing,
etc. The main issue fixed here is that we used rather confusing
wording for diagnostics such as
t.c:2:9: warning: initializing 'char const [2]' discards qualifiers,
expected 'char *' [-pedantic]
char *name = __func__;
^ ~~~~~~~~
We're not initializing a 'char const [2]', we're initializing a 'char
*' with an expression of type 'char const [2]'. Similar problems
existed for other diagnostics in this area, so I've normalized them all
with more precise descriptive text to say what we're
initializing/converting/assigning/etc. from and to. The warning for
the code above is now:
t.c:2:9: warning: initializing 'char *' from an expression of type
'char const [2]' discards qualifiers [-pedantic]
char *name = __func__;
^ ~~~~~~~~
Fixes <rdar://problem/7447179>.
llvm-svn: 100832
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
or that's been hidden by a non-type (in C++).
The ideal C++ diagnostic here would note the hiding declaration, but this
is a good start.
llvm-svn: 96141
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 95246
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 95185
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
type qualifiers and type specifiers in any order. For example,
this is valid: struct x {...} typedef y;
This fixes PR6208.
llvm-svn: 95094
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
t.c:4:3: error: expected ';' at end of declaration list
int y;
^
t.c:4:8: warning: extra ';' inside a struct or union
int y;
^
t.c:6:1: warning: expected ';' at end of declaration list
};
^
After:
t.c:3:8: error: expected ';' at end of declaration list
int x // expected-error {{expected ';' at end of declaration list}}
^
;
t.c:5:8: warning: expected ';' at end of declaration list
int z
^
;
llvm-svn: 95038
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
- 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
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 76709
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
scheme to be more useful.
The new scheme introduces a set of categories that should be more
readable, and also reflects what we want to consider as an extension
more accurately. Specifically, it makes the "what is a keyword"
determination accurately reflect whether the keyword is a GNU or
Microsoft extension.
I also introduced separate flags for keyword aliases; this is useful
because the classification of the aliases is mostly unrelated to the
classification of the original keyword.
This patch treats anything that's in the implementation
namespace (prefixed with "__", or "_X" where "X" is any upper-case
letter) as a keyword without marking it as an extension. This is
consistent with the standards in that an implementation is allowed to define
arbitrary extensions in the implementation namespace without violating
the standard. This gets rid of all the nasty "extension used" warnings
for stuff like __attribute__ in -pedantic mode. We still warn for
extensions outside of the the implementation namespace, like typeof.
If someone wants to implement -Wextensions or something like that, we
could add additional information to the keyword table.
This also removes processing for the unused "Boolean" language option;
such an extension isn't supported on any other C implementation, so I
don't see any point to adding it.
The changes to test/CodeGen/inline.c are required because previously, we
weren't actually disabling the "inline" keyword in -std=c89 mode.
I'll remove Boolean and NoExtensions from LangOptions in a follow-up
commit.
llvm-svn: 70281
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 68918
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
this allows downstream diags to be properly silenced.
llvm-svn: 68917
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
struct xyz { int y; };
enum abc { ZZZ };
static xyz b;
abc c;
we used to produce:
t2.c:4:8: error: unknown type name 'xyz'
static xyz b;
^
t2.c:5:1: error: unknown type name 'abc'
abc c;
^
we now produce:
t2.c:4:8: error: use of tagged type 'xyz' without 'struct' tag
static xyz b;
^
struct
t2.c:5:1: error: use of tagged type 'abc' without 'enum' tag
abc c;
^
enum
GCC produces the normal:
t2.c:4: error: expected ‘=’, ‘,’, ‘;’, ‘asm’ or ‘__attribute__’ before ‘b’
t2.c:5: error: expected ‘=’, ‘,’, ‘;’, ‘asm’ or ‘__attribute__’ before ‘c’
rdar://6783347
llvm-svn: 68914
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
which tries to do better error recovery when it is "obvious" that an
identifier is a mis-typed typename. In this case, we try to parse
it as a typename instead of as the identifier in a declarator, which
gives us several options for better error recovery and immediately
makes diagnostics more useful. For example, we now produce:
t.c:4:8: error: unknown type name 'foo_t'
static foo_t a = 4;
^
instead of:
t.c:4:14: error: invalid token after top level declarator
static foo_t a = 4;
^
Also, since we now parse "a" correctly, we make a decl for it,
preventing later uses of 'a' from emitting things like:
t.c:12:20: error: use of undeclared identifier 'a'
int bar() { return a + b; }
^
I'd really appreciate any scrutiny possible on this, it
is a tricky area.
llvm-svn: 68911
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Tests and drivers updated, still need to shuffle dirs.
llvm-svn: 67602
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 59027
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 49271
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 49270
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
subsuming) my patch for PR1999.
llvm-svn: 49251
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
completely
missing. Otherwise, it is an implicit int case, which is valid in c90 and invalid
elsewhere, but accepted as an extension.
llvm-svn: 46938
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
type specifiers. This required updating some (buggy) tests, and the
testcase was previously accidentally committed.
llvm-svn: 46603
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 45205
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 39614
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 38899
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 38889
|
|
|
llvm-svn: 38825
|
