Prior to the patch, we didn't build a DeclRefExpr if the Decl being
referred to is invalid, because many clang downstream AST consumers
assume it, violating it will cause many diagnostic regressions.
With this patch, we build a DeclRefExpr enven for an invalid decl (when the
AcceptInvalidDecl is true), and wrap it with a dependent-type
RecoveryExpr (to prevent follow-up semantic analysis, and diagnostic
regressions).
This is a revised version of https://reviews.llvm.org/D76831
Reviewed By: sammccall
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121599
For failed static assertions, try to take the expression apart and print
useful information about why it failed. In particular, look at binary
operators and print the compile-time evaluated value of the LHS/RHS.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D130894
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
The dump of all diagnostics of all tests under `clang/test/{CXX,SemaCXX,SemaTemplate}` was analyzed , and all the cases where there were obviously bad canonical types being printed, like `type-parameter-*-*` and `<overloaded function type>` were identified. Also a small amount of cases of missing sugar were analyzed.
This patch then spells those explicitly in the test expectations, as preparatory work for future fixes for these problems.
Signed-off-by: Matheus Izvekov <mizvekov@gmail.com>
Reviewed By: rsmith
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110210
They can get stale at use time because of updates from other recursive
specializations. Instead, rely on the existence of previous declarations to add
the specialization.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87853
Haojian Wu