linux-sparse.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>
To: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Christopher Li <sparse@chrisli.org>,
	Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH v3 2/7] add test case for scope of C99 for-loop declarations
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:03:58 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170228100403.33184-3-luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170228100403.33184-1-luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>

Insure that variable declared inside a C99 for-loop
have their scope restricted to this loop.

Signed-off-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>
---
 validation/c99-for-loop-decl.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 validation/c99-for-loop-decl.c

diff --git a/validation/c99-for-loop-decl.c b/validation/c99-for-loop-decl.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..c2ceaab99
--- /dev/null
+++ b/validation/c99-for-loop-decl.c
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+static int bad_scope(void)
+{
+	int r = 0;
+
+	for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
+		r = i;
+	}
+
+	return i;			/* check-should-fail */
+}
+
+/*
+ * check-name: C99 for-loop declarations
+ *
+ * check-error-start
+c99-for-loop-decl.c:9:16: error: undefined identifier 'i'
+ * check-error-end
+ */
-- 
2.11.1


  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-02-28 10:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-02-18 20:30 [PATCH 0/5] more validation of C99 for-loop initializers Luc Van Oostenryck
2017-02-18 20:30 ` [PATCH 1/5] replace test for c99 " Luc Van Oostenryck
2017-02-18 22:37   ` Ramsay Jones
2017-02-19  1:10     ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2017-02-19 20:58       ` Ramsay Jones
2017-02-20  7:20         ` [PATCH v2 0/5] more validation of C99 " Luc Van Oostenryck
2017-02-20  7:20           ` [PATCH v2 1/5] replace test for c99 " Luc Van Oostenryck
2017-02-20 14:05             ` Ramsay Jones
2017-02-20  7:20           ` [PATCH v2 2/5] add test case for scope of C99 for-loop declarations Luc Van Oostenryck
2017-02-20  7:20           ` [PATCH v2 3/5] add test cases for storage of c99 " Luc Van Oostenryck
2017-02-20  7:20           ` [PATCH v2 4/5] add a method to external_declaration() Luc Van Oostenryck
2017-02-20  7:20           ` [PATCH v2 5/5] check the storage of C99 for-loop initializers Luc Van Oostenryck
2017-02-18 20:30 ` [PATCH 2/5] add test case for scope of C99 for-loop declarations Luc Van Oostenryck
2017-02-18 20:30 ` [PATCH 3/5] add test cases for storage of c99 " Luc Van Oostenryck
2017-02-18 20:30 ` [PATCH 4/5] add a method to external_declaration() Luc Van Oostenryck
2017-02-27 15:37   ` Christopher Li
2017-02-27 21:34     ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2017-02-28  9:46     ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2017-02-28 10:03       ` [PATCH v3 0/7] more validation of C99 for-loop initializers Luc Van Oostenryck
2017-02-28 10:03         ` [PATCH v3 1/7] replace test for c99 " Luc Van Oostenryck
2017-02-28 10:03         ` Luc Van Oostenryck [this message]
2017-02-28 10:03         ` [PATCH v3 3/7] add test cases for storage of c99 for-loop declarations Luc Van Oostenryck
2017-02-28 10:04         ` [PATCH v3 4/7] add a method to external_declaration() Luc Van Oostenryck
2017-03-05 14:04           ` Christopher Li
2017-03-05 15:12             ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2017-03-06  1:13               ` Christopher Li
2017-03-05 19:21             ` [PATCH v4 0/6] more validation of C99 for-loop initializers Luc Van Oostenryck
2017-03-05 19:21               ` [PATCH v4 1/6] replace test for c99 " Luc Van Oostenryck
2017-03-05 19:21               ` [PATCH v4 2/6] add test case for scope of C99 for-loop declarations Luc Van Oostenryck
2017-03-05 19:21               ` [PATCH v4 3/6] add test cases for storage of c99 " Luc Van Oostenryck
2017-03-05 19:21               ` [PATCH v4 4/6] add an optional validation method to external_declaration() Luc Van Oostenryck
2017-03-05 19:21               ` [PATCH v4 5/6] check the storage of C99 for-loop initializers Luc Van Oostenryck
2017-03-05 19:21               ` [PATCH v4 6/6] move 'extern with initializer' validation after the validate method Luc Van Oostenryck
2017-03-06  0:59               ` [PATCH v4 0/6] more validation of C99 for-loop initializers Christopher Li
2017-03-06  1:08                 ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2017-02-28 10:04         ` [PATCH v3 5/7] check the storage " Luc Van Oostenryck
2017-03-05 14:26           ` Christopher Li
2017-03-05 15:24             ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2017-02-28 10:04         ` [PATCH v3 6/7] make process_decl() aware of the presence of an initializer Luc Van Oostenryck
2017-03-05 14:49           ` Christopher Li
2017-03-05 15:29             ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2017-02-28 10:04         ` [PATCH v3 7/7] move check extern with initializer to default_process_decl() Luc Van Oostenryck
2017-02-28 16:34         ` [PATCH v3 0/7] more validation of C99 for-loop initializers Christopher Li
2017-02-28 16:40           ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2017-02-18 20:30 ` [PATCH 5/5] check the storage " Luc Van Oostenryck

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20170228100403.33184-3-luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com \
    --to=luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sparse@chrisli.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).