|
Revision tags: llvmorg-20.1.0, llvmorg-20.1.0-rc3, llvmorg-20.1.0-rc2, llvmorg-20.1.0-rc1, llvmorg-21-init, llvmorg-19.1.7, llvmorg-19.1.6, llvmorg-19.1.5, llvmorg-19.1.4, llvmorg-19.1.3, llvmorg-19.1.2, llvmorg-19.1.1, llvmorg-19.1.0, llvmorg-19.1.0-rc4, llvmorg-19.1.0-rc3, llvmorg-19.1.0-rc2, llvmorg-19.1.0-rc1, llvmorg-20-init, llvmorg-18.1.8, llvmorg-18.1.7, llvmorg-18.1.6, llvmorg-18.1.5, llvmorg-18.1.4, llvmorg-18.1.3, llvmorg-18.1.2, llvmorg-18.1.1, llvmorg-18.1.0, llvmorg-18.1.0-rc4, llvmorg-18.1.0-rc3, llvmorg-18.1.0-rc2, llvmorg-18.1.0-rc1, llvmorg-19-init, llvmorg-17.0.6, llvmorg-17.0.5, llvmorg-17.0.4, llvmorg-17.0.3, llvmorg-17.0.2, llvmorg-17.0.1, llvmorg-17.0.0, llvmorg-17.0.0-rc4, llvmorg-17.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-17.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-17.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-18-init, llvmorg-16.0.6, llvmorg-16.0.5, llvmorg-16.0.4, llvmorg-16.0.3, llvmorg-16.0.2, llvmorg-16.0.1, llvmorg-16.0.0, llvmorg-16.0.0-rc4, llvmorg-16.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-16.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-16.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-17-init, llvmorg-15.0.7, llvmorg-15.0.6, llvmorg-15.0.5, llvmorg-15.0.4, llvmorg-15.0.3, llvmorg-15.0.2, llvmorg-15.0.1, llvmorg-15.0.0, llvmorg-15.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-15.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-15.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-16-init |
|
| #
76476efd |
| 25-Jul-2022 |
Muhammad Usman Shahid <[email protected]> |
Rewording "static_assert" diagnostics
This patch rewords the static assert diagnostic output. Failing a
_Static_assert in C should not report that static_assert failed. This
changes the wording to b
Rewording "static_assert" diagnostics
This patch rewords the static assert diagnostic output. Failing a
_Static_assert in C should not report that static_assert failed. This
changes the wording to be more like GCC and uses "static assertion"
when possible instead of hard coding the name. This also changes some
instances of 'static_assert' to instead be based on the token in the
source code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048
show more ...
|
| #
1da31190 |
| 21-Jul-2022 |
Erich Keane <[email protected]> |
Revert "Rewording the "static_assert" to static assertion"
Looks like we again are going to have problems with libcxx tests that
are overly specific in their dependency on clang's diagnostics.
This
Revert "Rewording the "static_assert" to static assertion"
Looks like we again are going to have problems with libcxx tests that
are overly specific in their dependency on clang's diagnostics.
This reverts commit 6542cb55a3eb115b1c3592514590a19987ffc498.
show more ...
|
| #
6542cb55 |
| 21-Jul-2022 |
Muhammad Usman Shahid <[email protected]> |
Rewording the "static_assert" to static assertion
This patch is basically the rewording of the static assert statement's
output(error) on screen after failing. Failing a _Static_assert in C
should n
Rewording the "static_assert" to static assertion
This patch is basically the rewording of the static assert statement's
output(error) on screen after failing. Failing a _Static_assert in C
should not report that static_assert failed. It’d probably be better to
reword the diagnostic to be more like GCC and say “static assertion”
failed in both C and C++.
consider a c file having code
_Static_assert(0, "oh no!");
In clang the output is like:
<source>:1:1: error: static_assert failed: oh no!
_Static_assert(0, "oh no!");
^ ~
1 error generated.
Compiler returned: 1
Thus here the "static_assert" is not much good, it will be better to
reword it to the "static assertion failed" to more generic. as the gcc
prints as:
<source>:1:1: error: static assertion failed: "oh no!"
1 | _Static_assert(0, "oh no!");
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Compiler returned: 1
The above can also be seen here. This patch is about rewording
the static_assert to static assertion.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048
show more ...
|
| #
041d4012 |
| 14-Jul-2022 |
Mitch Phillips <[email protected]> |
Revert "Rewording "static_assert" diagnostics"
This reverts commit b7e77ff25fb2412f6ab6d6cc756666b0e2f97bd3.
Reason: Broke sanitizer builds bots + libcxx. 'static assertion
expression is not an int
Revert "Rewording "static_assert" diagnostics"
This reverts commit b7e77ff25fb2412f6ab6d6cc756666b0e2f97bd3.
Reason: Broke sanitizer builds bots + libcxx. 'static assertion
expression is not an integral constant expression'. More details
available in the Phabricator review: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048
show more ...
|
| #
b7e77ff2 |
| 14-Jul-2022 |
Muhammad Usman Shahid <[email protected]> |
Rewording "static_assert" diagnostics
This patch rewords the static assert diagnostic output. Failing a
_Static_assert in C should not report that static_assert failed. This
changes the wording to b
Rewording "static_assert" diagnostics
This patch rewords the static assert diagnostic output. Failing a
_Static_assert in C should not report that static_assert failed. This
changes the wording to be more like GCC and uses "static assertion"
when possible instead of hard coding the name. This also changes some
instances of 'static_assert' to instead be based on the token in the
source code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048
show more ...
|
|
Revision tags: llvmorg-14.0.6, llvmorg-14.0.5, llvmorg-14.0.4, llvmorg-14.0.3, llvmorg-14.0.2, llvmorg-14.0.1, llvmorg-14.0.0, llvmorg-14.0.0-rc4, llvmorg-14.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-14.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-14.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-15-init, llvmorg-13.0.1, llvmorg-13.0.1-rc3, llvmorg-13.0.1-rc2, llvmorg-13.0.1-rc1 |
|
| #
27ea0c4e |
| 11-Nov-2021 |
Sam McCall <[email protected]> |
[Parse] Use empty RecoveryExpr when if/while/do/switch conditions fail to parse
This allows the body to be parsed.
An special-case that would replace a missing if condition with OpaqueValueExpr
was
[Parse] Use empty RecoveryExpr when if/while/do/switch conditions fail to parse
This allows the body to be parsed.
An special-case that would replace a missing if condition with OpaqueValueExpr
was removed as it's now redundant (unless recovery-expr is disabled).
For loops are not handled at this point, as the parsing is more complicated.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113752
show more ...
|
| #
71059f26 |
| 30-Dec-2021 |
Sam McCall <[email protected]> |
[AST] Produce ReturnStmt containing RecoveryExpr when type is wrong
Previously we just drop the ReturnStmt and its argument from the AST,
which blocks analysis of broken code.
Fixes https://github.
[AST] Produce ReturnStmt containing RecoveryExpr when type is wrong
Previously we just drop the ReturnStmt and its argument from the AST,
which blocks analysis of broken code.
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/39944
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116414
show more ...
|
| #
de7494a3 |
| 27-Oct-2021 |
Sam McCall <[email protected]> |
[AST] fail rather than crash when const evaluating invalid c++ foreach
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112633
|
|
Revision tags: llvmorg-13.0.0, llvmorg-13.0.0-rc4, llvmorg-13.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-13.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-13.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-14-init, llvmorg-12.0.1, llvmorg-12.0.1-rc4, llvmorg-12.0.1-rc3, llvmorg-12.0.1-rc2, llvmorg-12.0.1-rc1, llvmorg-12.0.0, llvmorg-12.0.0-rc5, llvmorg-12.0.0-rc4, llvmorg-12.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-12.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-11.1.0, llvmorg-11.1.0-rc3, llvmorg-12.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-13-init, llvmorg-11.1.0-rc2, llvmorg-11.1.0-rc1, llvmorg-11.0.1, llvmorg-11.0.1-rc2 |
|
| #
a0539298 |
| 10-Dec-2020 |
Haojian Wu <[email protected]> |
[AST] Fix a constexpr-evaluator crash on error-dependent returnstmt.
When the evaluator encounters an error-dependent returnstmt, before this patch
it returned a ESR_Returned without setting the res
[AST] Fix a constexpr-evaluator crash on error-dependent returnstmt.
When the evaluator encounters an error-dependent returnstmt, before this patch
it returned a ESR_Returned without setting the result, the callsides think this
is a successful execution, and try to access the Result which causes the crash.
The fix is to always return failed as we don't know the result of the
error-dependent return stmt.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92969
show more ...
|
|
Revision tags: llvmorg-11.0.1-rc1 |
|
| #
bd4662cd |
| 18-Nov-2020 |
Haojian Wu <[email protected]> |
[AST] Enhance the const expression evaluator to support error-dependent exprs.
Fix a crash when evaluating a constexpr function which contains
recovery-exprs. https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4
[AST] Enhance the const expression evaluator to support error-dependent exprs.
Fix a crash when evaluating a constexpr function which contains
recovery-exprs. https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46837
Would be nice to have constant expression evaluator support general template
value-dependent expressions, but it requires more work.
This patch is a good start I think, to handle the error-only
value-dependent expressions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84637
show more ...
|