On 19/05/2020 01:57, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> This testcase was marked as known-to-fail but it was
> simply the expected error messages that were missing.
>
> So, slightly reorganize the test a little bit, add the
> expected messages and remove the 'known-to-fail' tag.
>
> Signed-off-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> validation/typeof-safe.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/validation/typeof-safe.c b/validation/typeof-safe.c
> index 614863fba381..508bd39204c5 100644
> --- a/validation/typeof-safe.c
> +++ b/validation/typeof-safe.c
> @@ -2,16 +2,24 @@
>
> static void test_safe(void)
> {
> - int __safe obj, *ptr;
> - typeof(obj) var = obj;
> - typeof(ptr) ptr2 = ptr;
> + int obj;
> + int __safe *ptr;
> +
> + int __safe *ptr2 = ptr;
> + typeof(ptr) ptr3 = ptr;
> typeof(*ptr) var2 = obj;
> - typeof(*ptr) *ptr3 = ptr;
> - typeof(obj) *ptr4 = ptr;
> + int __safe var3 = obj;
> + int *ptr4 = &obj;
> + int *ptr4 = ptr; // KO
ptr4 declared twice - and sparse didn't complain?
ATB,
Ramsay Jones
> +
> + typeof(*ptr) sobj;
> + typeof(&sobj) ptr5 = &obj;
> + typeof(&sobj) ptr6 = ptr; // KO
> +
> obj = obj;
> ptr = ptr;
> - ptr = &obj;
> obj = *ptr;
> + ptr = (int __safe *) &obj;
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -19,5 +27,11 @@ static void test_safe(void)
> * check-known-to-fail
> *
> * check-error-start
> +typeof-safe.c:13:21: warning: incorrect type in initializer (different modifiers)
> +typeof-safe.c:13:21: expected int *ptr4
> +typeof-safe.c:13:21: got int [safe] *ptr
> +typeof-safe.c:17:30: warning: incorrect type in initializer (different modifiers)
> +typeof-safe.c:17:30: expected int *ptr6
> +typeof-safe.c:17:30: got int [safe] *ptr
> * check-error-end
> */
>
