On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Nuno Lopes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp (original) > +++ cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp Mon Sep 1 13:42:41 2008 > @@ -1269,6 +1269,9 @@ > if (Init->getType()->isArrayType()) > return false; > > + if (Init->getType()->isFunctionType()) > + return false; > +
I'm not sure this fix makes sense; it seems a little messy to me, although I hadn't really considered this case when I wrote the code. Maybe we should do unary promotions as part of error recovery for excess initializer elements? Or maybe we shouldn't be trying to check elements that we aren't going to use? Or maybe we should just make the excess elements warning into an error, because it most likely indicates something seriously screwed up with either the code in question or the way it's being parsed. > Diag(Init->getExprLoc(), diag::err_init_element_not_constant, > Init->getSourceRange()); > return true; > > Modified: cfe/trunk/test/Sema/array-init.c > URL: > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/Sema/array-init.c?rev=55609&r1=55608&r2=55609&view=diff > > ============================================================================== > --- cfe/trunk/test/Sema/array-init.c (original) > +++ cfe/trunk/test/Sema/array-init.c Mon Sep 1 13:42:41 2008 > @@ -235,3 +235,6 @@ > {(int) &dblfault_tss}, > { (int)xpto}, > }; > + > +static void sppp_ipv6cp_up(); > +const struct {} ipcp = { sppp_ipv6cp_up }; //expected-warning{{empty struct > extension}} expected-warning{{excess elements in array initializer}} Is there really any point to accepting this code? Nobody would ever write something like this intentionally. -Eli _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
