Commit Graph

6 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Muhammad Usman Shahid 76476efd68 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
2022-07-25 07:22:54 -04:00
Erich Keane 1da3119025 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 6542cb55a3.
2022-07-21 06:40:14 -07:00
Muhammad Usman Shahid 6542cb55a3 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
2022-07-21 06:34:14 -07:00
Mitch Phillips 041d4012e4 Revert "Rewording "static_assert" diagnostics"
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
2022-07-14 10:59:20 -07:00
Muhammad Usman Shahid b7e77ff25f 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
2022-07-14 07:47:37 -04:00
Nico Weber 98dd085d1f Objective-C++11: Support static_assert() in @interface/@implementation ivar lists and method declarations
This adds support for static_assert() (and _Static_assert()) in
@interface/@implementation ivar lists and in @interface method declarations.

It was already supported in @implementation blocks outside of the ivar lists.

The assert AST nodes are added at file scope, matching where other
(non-Objective-C) declarations at @interface / @implementation level go (cf
`allTUVariables`).

Also add a `__has_feature(objc_c_static_assert)` that's true in C11 (and
`__has_extension(objc_c_static_assert)` that's always true) and
`__has_feature(objc_cxx_static_assert)` that's true in C++11 modea fter this
patch, so it's possible to check if this is supported.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59223

llvm-svn: 356148
2019-03-14 14:18:56 +00:00