void added a comment.
In D124694#3485585 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D124694#3485585>, @aaron.ballman
wrote:
> struct t {
> int a, b, c, d, e;
> } x = { .a = 2, 4, 5, 6 };
>
> This situation seems like it should be an error, shouldn't it? The user
> specified one designated initializer (yay, that one is correct), but the rest
> are positional initializers and so there's no telling what they actually
> initialize due to field randomization.
That is diagnosed as an error. The issue is that after randomization, the `a`
field is placed at the end of the structure. The initializer checker then sees
the `.a = 2` and says, "Ah! That's the one at the end of the structure. Any
non-designated initializers afterwards will be excess ones," which is what
happens. But that warning is completely mysterious to the end users who isn't
told that they can't have a non-designated initializer on a randomized
structure. Moving the diagnostic allows the correct warning to be emitted
instead of the "excess elements" one.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Sema/init-randomized-struct.c:1
-// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple=x86_64-unknown-linux
-frandomize-layout-seed=1234567890abcdef \
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple=x86_64-unknown-linux
-frandomize-layout-seed=1234567890abcded \
// RUN: -verify -fsyntax-only -Werror %s
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Why is this change needed?
>
> (Also, shouldn't there be other test coverage added to the file?)
That seed is how to replicate this issue. The test exists and is triggered by
this change. I can add a comment to that effect.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D124694/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D124694
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
