aaron.ballman accepted this revision.
aaron.ballman added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM aside from a minor nit in the tests. Thank you for this!
================
Comment at: clang/test/C/drs/dr1xx.c:191-194
+ return *vvp; /* expected-warning {{void function 'dr113_v' should not return
void expression}} expected-warning{{ISO C does not allow indirection on operand
of type 'volatile void *'}} */
}
const void dr113_c(const void *cvp) { /* expected-warning {{function cannot
return qualified void type 'const void'}} */
+ return *cvp; /* expected-warning {{void function 'dr113_c' should not return
void expression}} expected-warning{{ISO C does not allow indirection on operand
of type 'const void *'}} */
----------------
Can you separate these diagnostics onto their own lines as well?
================
Comment at: clang/test/C/drs/dr1xx.c:140
/* The behavior changed between C89 and C99. */
- (void)&*p; /* c89only-warning {{ISO C forbids taking the address of an
expression of type 'void'}} */
+ (void)&*p; /* c89only-warning {{ISO C forbids taking the address of an
expression of type 'void'}} c89only-warning {{ISO C does not allow indirection
on operand of type 'void *'}} */
/* The behavior of all three of these is undefined. */
----------------
junaire wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > Can you switch all of the warning changes in this file to use this style
> > where each expected diagnostic is on its own line? That makes it easier to
> > notice which diagnostics happen on the line (it's easy to lose sight of the
> > trailing expected diagnostics otherwise).
> > Yes, basically, the language rule is that &*void_ptr is well defined in C99
> > and later
>
> IIUC, you mean this should be warned in C89 mode, right?
>> Yes, basically, the language rule is that &*void_ptr is well defined in C99
>> and later
>IIUC, you mean this should be warned in C89 mode, right?
Correct; I think there's two warnings that would fire there in C89:
dereferencing a void pointer is one, and taking the address of void is the
other.
================
Comment at: clang/test/C/drs/dr1xx.c:143
+ (void)*p; /* expected-warning {{ISO C does not allow indirection on operand
of type 'void *'}}*/
+ (void)&(*p); /* c89only-warning {{ISO C forbids taking the address of an
expression of type 'void'}} expected-warning {{ISO C does not allow indirection
on operand of type 'void *'}}*/
+ (void)(i ? *p : *p); /* expected-warning {{ISO C does not allow indirection
on operand of type 'void *'}} expected-warning {{ISO C does not allow
indirection on operand of type 'void *'}}*/
----------------
junaire wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > This looks wrong to me -- this should be an `expected-warning` instead of a
> > `c89only-warning`, same as two lines above, right?
> I'm a bit confused. Maybe I made the trailing comments too hard to read. This
> is an `expected-warning`, `c89only-warning` is for `ISO C forbids taking the
> address of an expression of type 'void'`, which is not part of this patch.
You're right, I think I just confused myself. Sorry for the noise! Though it is
a bit strange that `ISO C does not allow indirection on operand of type 'void
*'` is a c89 only warning on line 140 while it's an expected warning on line
146. Something odd is happening there, but I don't think it's the fault of this
patch.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D134461/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D134461
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
