paulsemel marked 6 inline comments as done.
paulsemel added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/Sema/builtin-dump-struct.c:8
+ void *b;
+ int (*goodfunc)(const char *, ...);
+ int (*badfunc1)(const char *);
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Can you also add a test for: `int (*badfunc4)(char *, ...);` and `int
> (*badfunc5)();`
Isn't `int (*func)()` is a valid prototype for a printf like function in C ?
I instead added `int (*func)(void)` to the test cases.
================
Comment at: test/Sema/builtin-dump-struct.c:15
+ __builtin_dump_struct(1); // expected-error {{too few arguments
to function call, expected 2, have 1}}
+ __builtin_dump_struct(1, 2); // expected-error {{passing 'int' to
parameter of incompatible type 'structure pointer type': type mismatch at 1st
parameter ('int' vs 'structure pointer type')}}
+ __builtin_dump_struct(&a, 2); // expected-error {{passing 'int' to
parameter of incompatible type 'int (*)(const char *, ...)': type mismatch at
2nd parameter ('int' vs 'int (*)(const char *, ...)')}}
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Hrm, the `'structure pointer type'` in this diagnostic is unfortunate because
> it's being quoted as though it were a real type -- you could drop the single
> quotes. If you think the resulting diagnostic reads too strangely, perhaps we
> will have to go back to a custom diagnostic after all.
I think it will be better to just put something like `structure pointer`, so
that we understand the type we are talking about.
But this diagnostic seems great, still, what do you think about sticking with
it ?
================
Comment at: test/Sema/builtin-dump-struct.c:17
+ __builtin_dump_struct(&a, 2); // expected-error {{passing 'int' to
parameter of incompatible type 'int (*)(const char *, ...)': type mismatch at
2nd parameter ('int' vs 'int (*)(const char *, ...)')}}
+ __builtin_dump_struct(b, &goodfunc); // expected-error {{passing 'void *' to
parameter of incompatible type 'structure pointer type': type mismatch at 1st
parameter ('void *' vs 'structure pointer type')}}
+ __builtin_dump_struct(&a, badfunc1); // expected-error {{passing 'int
(*)(const char *)' to parameter of incompatible type 'int (*)(const char *,
...)': type mismatch at 2nd parameter ('int (*)(const char *)' vs 'int
(*)(const char *, ...)')}}
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Why `&goodfunc`?
Yes, we already have a test like this anyway :)
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D44093
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
