Changes in constexpr-function-recovery-crash.cpp

76476efd - Rewording "static_assert" diagnostics

Mon, 25 Jul 2022 11:22:54 +0000

Rewording "static_assert" diagnosticsThis patch rewords the static assert diagnostic output. Failing a_Static_assert in C should not report that static_assert failed. Thischanges the wording to be more like GCC and uses "static assertion"when possible instead of hard coding the name. This also changes someinstances of 'static_assert' to instead be based on the token in thesource code.Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048 List of files: /llvm-project-15.0.7/clang/test/SemaCXX/constexpr-function-recovery-crash.cpp

1da31190 - Revert "Rewording the "static_assert" to static assertion"

Thu, 21 Jul 2022 13:39:22 +0000

Revert "Rewording the "static_assert" to static assertion"Looks like we again are going to have problems with libcxx tests thatare overly specific in their dependency on clang's diagnostics.This reverts commit 6542cb55a3eb115b1c3592514590a19987ffc498. List of files: /llvm-project-15.0.7/clang/test/SemaCXX/constexpr-function-recovery-crash.cpp

6542cb55 - Rewording the "static_assert" to static assertion

Thu, 21 Jul 2022 13:32:54 +0000

Rewording the "static_assert" to static assertionThis patch is basically the rewording of the static assert statement'soutput(error) on screen after failing. Failing a _Static_assert in Cshould not report that static_assert failed. It’d probably be better toreword 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::1:1: error: static_assert failed: oh no!_Static_assert(0, "oh no!");^ ~1 error generated.Compiler returned: 1Thus here the "static_assert" is not much good, it will be better toreword it to the "static assertion failed" to more generic. as the gccprints as::1:1: error: static assertion failed: "oh no!" 1 | _Static_assert(0, "oh no!"); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Compiler returned: 1The above can also be seen here. This patch is about rewordingthe static_assert to static assertion.Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048 List of files: /llvm-project-15.0.7/clang/test/SemaCXX/constexpr-function-recovery-crash.cpp

041d4012 - Revert "Rewording "static_assert" diagnostics"

Thu, 14 Jul 2022 17:52:43 +0000

Revert "Rewording "static_assert" diagnostics"This reverts commit b7e77ff25fb2412f6ab6d6cc756666b0e2f97bd3.Reason: Broke sanitizer builds bots + libcxx. 'static assertionexpression is not an integral constant expression'. More detailsavailable in the Phabricator review: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048 List of files: /llvm-project-15.0.7/clang/test/SemaCXX/constexpr-function-recovery-crash.cpp

b7e77ff2 - Rewording "static_assert" diagnostics

Thu, 14 Jul 2022 11:44:51 +0000

27ea0c4e - [Parse] Use empty RecoveryExpr when if/while/do/switch conditions fail to parse

Thu, 11 Nov 2021 14:27:10 +0000

[Parse] Use empty RecoveryExpr when if/while/do/switch conditions fail to parseThis allows the body to be parsed.An special-case that would replace a missing if condition with OpaqueValueExprwas 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 List of files: /llvm-project-15.0.7/clang/test/SemaCXX/constexpr-function-recovery-crash.cpp

71059f26 - [AST] Produce ReturnStmt containing RecoveryExpr when type is wrong

Thu, 30 Dec 2021 15:30:55 +0000

[AST] Produce ReturnStmt containing RecoveryExpr when type is wrongPreviously 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/39944Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116414 List of files: /llvm-project-15.0.7/clang/test/SemaCXX/constexpr-function-recovery-crash.cpp

de7494a3 - [AST] fail rather than crash when const evaluating invalid c++ foreach

Wed, 27 Oct 2021 16:50:24 +0000

[AST] fail rather than crash when const evaluating invalid c++ foreachDifferential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112633 List of files: /llvm-project-15.0.7/clang/test/SemaCXX/constexpr-function-recovery-crash.cpp

a0539298 - [AST] Fix a constexpr-evaluator crash on error-dependent returnstmt.

Thu, 10 Dec 2020 09:11:15 +0000

[AST] Fix a constexpr-evaluator crash on error-dependent returnstmt.When the evaluator encounters an error-dependent returnstmt, before this patchit returned a ESR_Returned without setting the result, the callsides think thisis 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 theerror-dependent return stmt.Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92969 List of files: /llvm-project-15.0.7/clang/test/SemaCXX/constexpr-function-recovery-crash.cpp

bd4662cd - [AST] Enhance the const expression evaluator to support error-dependent exprs.

Wed, 18 Nov 2020 14:48:06 +0000

[AST] Enhance the const expression evaluator to support error-dependent exprs.Fix a crash when evaluating a constexpr function which containsrecovery-exprs. https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46837Would be nice to have constant expression evaluator support general templatevalue-dependent expressions, but it requires more work.This patch is a good start I think, to handle the error-onlyvalue-dependent expressions.Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84637 List of files: /llvm-project-15.0.7/clang/test/SemaCXX/constexpr-function-recovery-crash.cpp