================
Comment at: test/Parser/bad-control.c:22-30
@@ +21,11 @@
+
+// GCC rejects this code
+void pr8880_3(int first) {
+ for ( ; ; (void)({ if (first) { first = 0; continue; } 0; })) {}
+}
+
+// GCC rejects this code (see also tests/Analysis/dead-stores.c rdar8014335()
+void pr8880_4(int first) {
+ for ( ; ; (void)({ if (first) { first = 0; break; } 0; })) {}
+}
+
----------------
Richard Smith wrote:
> Does this mean we're misinterpreting pr8880_10 and pr8880_11 below?
No, this is a feature of GCC. It uses different interpretation depending on
whether code is compiled as C or as C++. In C++ mode break and continue in the
second or third expression of for statement refer to the inner loop, in C mode
- to the outer. However in both modes GCC reject using break/continue if for
statement is not inside another loop. Clang is more consistent, it considers
that the third expression refers to the inner loop and the second - to outer,
the interpretation is the same in C and C++ mode.
================
Comment at: test/Sema/statements.c:94-95
@@ -93,4 +93,4 @@
// PR 8880
// FIXME: Clang should reject this, since GCC does. Previously this
// was causing a crash in the CFG builder.
int test_pr8880() {
----------------
Richard Smith wrote:
> Remove this FIXME.
OK.
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2018
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
