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
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 6542cb55a3.
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
This reverts commit b7e77ff25f.
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
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
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
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
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
Muhammad Usman Shahid