================
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify %s
+
+a() {struct b c (sizeof(b * [({ {tree->d* next)} 0
+
+// expected-error@3 {{a type specifier is required for all declarations}}
+// expected-error@3 {{use of undeclared identifier 'tree'; did you mean
'true'?}}
+// expected-error@3 {{member reference type 'bool' is not a pointer}}
+// expected-error@3 {{expected ';' after expression}}
+// expected-error@3 {{use of undeclared identifier 'next'; did you mean
'new'?}}
+// expected-error@3 {{expected expression}}
+// expected-error@3 {{expected ';' after expression}}
+// expected-error@26 {{expected '}'}}
+// expected-note@3 {{to match this '{'}}
+// expected-error@26 {{expected ')'}}
+// expected-note@3 {{to match this '('}}
+// expected-error@26 {{expected ']'}}
+// expected-note@3 {{to match this '['}}
+// expected-error@26 {{expected ')'}}
+// expected-note@3 {{to match this '('}}
+// expected-error@3 {{using declaration 'exp' instantiates to an empty pack}}
+// expected-error@3 {{variable has incomplete type 'struct b'}}
+// expected-note@3 {{forward declaration of 'b'}}
+// expected-error@3 {{expected ';' at end of declaration}}
+// expected-error@26 {{expected '}'}}
+// expected-note@3 {{to match this '{'}}
+// expected-warning@3 {{expression result unused}}
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
OOof, that is awful. Is that really the minimal example that causes the crash?
I don't really have a great idea. I might disable the warning with a `-Wno`
flag, but most of those are not actually important to what we want to do here.
The whole point is to ensure it doesn't crash/assert, not to make sure we emit
all those diagnostics.
We should come up with a way to test "did not crash" instead of this.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/112111
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
