[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       cfe-commits
Subject:    RE: [PATCH] RE: [cfe-dev] missing return statement for non-void functions in C++
From:       scott douglass via cfe-commits <cfe-commits () lists ! llvm ! org>
Date:       2015-08-18 13:16:17
Message-ID: 000001d0d9b8$10f9f190$32edd4b0$ () arm ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

> Please see updated patch file attached, which now includes a fixed/added
> regression test.

I think it's a good idea; two minor remarks:

+    if (!CGM.getCodeGenOpts().OptimizeSize) {
Should this be 'else if'?  I imagine there's no use emitting a trap after the \
sanitizer has emitted a missing_return check.

In the regression test, the CHECK-OPT case is now essentially the same as the CHECK \
case, so remove ' --check-prefix=CHECK-OPT' (but leave the RUN:) and these lines  // \
CHECK-OPT: call void @llvm.trap  // CHECK-OPT:     unreachable



_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]