================
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -debug-info-kind=limited -gno-column-info
-triple=x86_64-pc-linux -emit-llvm %s -o - | FileCheck %s
+
+// The important thing is that the compare and the conditional branch have
+// locs with the same scope (the lexical block for the 'if'). By turning off
+// column info, they end up with the same !dbg record, which halves the number
+// of checks to verify the scope.
+
+int c = 2;
+
+int f() {
+#line 100
+ if (int a = 5; a > c)
+ return 1;
+ return 0;
+}
+// CHECK-LABEL: define {{.*}} @_Z1fv()
+// CHECK: = icmp {{.*}} !dbg [[F_CMP:![0-9]+]]
+// CHECK-NEXT: br i1 {{.*}} !dbg [[F_CMP]]
----------------
pogo59 wrote:
I followed this where my test case led me. You're right it's worth looking at
other control structures that have implied lexical blocks.
> & I guess this all only applies when the control structure doesn't have `{}`?
> (that being why the test doesn't have braces?)
No, this applies in all cases.
```
if (int a = 5; b > c) {
return a;
} else {
return a + 1;
}
```
The implied lexical block started by the `if` statement spans its then and else
parts; whether those parts are simple or compound doesn't matter. Analogous to
how a function definition has an implied lexical block at the opening paren of
the parameter list; the function name is visible in the containing scope, the
parameter names are not.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108300
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
