8 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Timm Bäder
09117b2189 [clang][sema] Print more information about failed static assertions
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
2022-08-11 08:44:38 +02:00
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 6542cb55a3eb115b1c3592514590a19987ffc498.
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 b7e77ff25fb2412f6ab6d6cc756666b0e2f97bd3.

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
bfce36299c Fix test after r356148
llvm-svn: 356154
2019-03-14 14:40:48 +00:00
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