rsmith added a comment.
Thanks, nice catch!
Can we also add an assert when parsing a `for` statement that we actually find
a range if the tentative parse said we were expecting one?
================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeGenCXX/for-loop-init-ternary-operator-statement.cpp:1
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple i386-unknown-unknown -O3 -emit-llvm -o - %s |
FileCheck %s
+
----------------
We don't use `-O3` tests for this kind of thing, to avoid depending on the
behaviour of the optimizer; instead you should test that the (unoptimized) IR
generated by clang is correct.
================
Comment at: clang/test/PCH/for-loop-init-ternary-operator-statement.cpp:5
+int f() {
+ // CHECK: for (int i = 0; x; i++) {
+ for (int i = 0; int x = i < 2 ? 1 : 0; i++) {
----------------
This ast-print output looks wrong; I assume that's an unrelated bug?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D102502/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D102502
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
