[PATCH] D124694: [randstruct] Move initializer check to be more effective

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rGf2639cf3fe46: [randstruct] Move initializer check to be more effective (authored by void). Changed prior to commit: https://reviews.llvm.org/D124694?vs=426149&id=426788#toc Repository: rG LLVM Github

[PATCH] D124694: [randstruct] Move initializer check to be more effective

aaron.ballman accepted this revision. aaron.ballman added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. In D124694#3486547 , @void wrote: > In D124694#3485585 , @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> struct

[PATCH] D124694: [randstruct] Move initializer check to be more effective

void added a comment. In D124694#3486547 , @void wrote: > In D124694#3485585 , @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> struct t { >> int a, b, c, d, e; >> } x = { .a = 2, 4, 5, 6 }; >> >> This situation seems like

[PATCH] D124694: [randstruct] Move initializer check to be more effective

void added a comment. In 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 (

[PATCH] D124694: [randstruct] Move initializer check to be more effective

aaron.ballman added a comment. 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 te

[PATCH] D124694: [randstruct] Move initializer check to be more effective

void created this revision. void added reviewers: stuij, MaskRay, aaron.ballman. Herald added a subscriber: StephenFan. Herald added a project: All. void requested review of this revision. Herald added a project: clang. Herald added a subscriber: cfe-commits. If a randomized structure has an initi