rsmith added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Parse/ParseExprCXX.cpp:1760
+ if (InitStmt && TryConsumeToken(tok::semi)) {
+ WarnOnInit();
+ return ParseCXXCondition(nullptr, Loc, CK);
----------------
Please create a NullStmt here (`Actions.ActOnNullStmt`), rather than producing
an AST that's indistinguishable from one where the init statement was omitted.
================
Comment at: lib/Parse/ParseExprCXX.cpp:1780-1783
Diag(Tok.getLocation(), getLangOpts().CPlusPlus17
? diag::warn_cxx14_compat_init_statement
: diag::ext_init_statement)
<< (CK == Sema::ConditionKind::Switch);
----------------
Use `WarnOnInit()` here.
================
Comment at: test/CXX/stmt.stmt/stmt.select/p3.cpp:70-71
+
+// TODO: This is needed because clang can't seem to diagnose invalid syntax
after the
+// last loop above. It would be nice to remove this.
+void whileInitStatement2() {
----------------
I think error recovery thought that a `)` was omitted before the `;`, so it
imagined we had:
```
while (Var + Var); Var--) {}
```
Then it thought that a `;` was omitted before the `)`, so it imagined we had:
```
while (Var + Var); Var--; ) {}
```
Then it saw a statement beginning with a `)`, and decided to skip to the next
statement, which would skip past the `)`, the `{`, the `}`, and whatever
statement you put next in the function.
Maybe we should parse as if an //init-statement// were permitted on a `while`
loop (and produce an error after the fact if there's one present). But that
should be done in a separate patch if you're interested in working on it.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D40445
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
