aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Lex/PPDirectives.cpp:621
+ if (CondInfo.FoundElse)
+ Diag(Tok, diag::pp_err_elif_after_else) << (IsElifDef ? 1 : 2);
+
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> As you know, I'm a giant fan of using enums for cases like this, so it would
> be my preference to have something like that. Sadly it looks like it would
> have to be file-level here instead of functionlevel like is most convenient.
Given that all the diagnostics are in the same file, I suppose that's fine.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Preprocessor/elifdef.c:71
+
+/* expected-error@+3 {{#elifdef after #else}} */
+#ifdef FOO
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> Are there any tests you could do to make sure this 'works'? That is:
>
> #define BAR
> // expected-error@+3 {{"AN ERROR!"}}
> #ifdef FOO
> #elifdef BAR
> #error "AN ERROR!"
> #endif
>
> AND
>
> // no error expected here!
> #ifdef FOO
> #elifndef BAR
> #error "AN ERROR!"
> #endif
>
> And perhaps...
>
> // expected-error@+4 {{"AN ERROR AGAIN!"}}
> #ifdef FOO
> #elifdef BAR
> #else
> #error "AN ERROR AGAIN!"
> #endif
>
>
I think the first test is what's on lines 63-69, the third is what's on lines
43-47, but I'll add the second test because I don't think that's covered yet.
Thanks for the suggestion!
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D101192/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D101192
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
