Files
llvm-project/clang/test/CodeGen/switch.c
John McCall 20f6ab828a Fix a latent bug where, after emitting an expression statement, we would
delete the block we began emitting into if it had no predecessors.  We never
want to do this, because there are several valid cases during statement
emission where an existing block has no known predecessors but will acquire
some later.  The case in my test case doesn't inherently fall into this 
category, because we could safely emit the case-range code before the statement
body, but there are examples with labels that can't be fallen into 
that would also demonstrate this bug.

rdar://problem/8837067

llvm-svn: 123303
2011-01-12 03:41:02 +00:00

214 lines
3.3 KiB
C

// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple i386-unknown-unknown -O3 %s -emit-llvm -o - | FileCheck %s
int foo(int i) {
int j = 0;
switch (i) {
case -1:
j = 1; break;
case 1 :
j = 2; break;
case 2:
j = 3; break;
default:
j = 42; break;
}
j = j + 1;
return j;
}
int foo2(int i) {
int j = 0;
switch (i) {
case 1 :
j = 2; break;
case 2 ... 10:
j = 3; break;
default:
j = 42; break;
}
j = j + 1;
return j;
}
int foo3(int i) {
int j = 0;
switch (i) {
default:
j = 42; break;
case 111:
j = 111; break;
case 0 ... 100:
j = 1; break;
case 222:
j = 222; break;
}
return j;
}
static int foo4(int i) {
int j = 0;
switch (i) {
case 111:
j = 111; break;
case 0 ... 100:
j = 1; break;
case 222:
j = 222; break;
default:
j = 42; break;
case 501 ... 600:
j = 5; break;
}
return j;
}
// CHECK: define i32 @foo4t()
// CHECK: ret i32 376
// CHECK: }
int foo4t() {
// 111 + 1 + 222 + 42 = 376
return foo4(111) + foo4(99) + foo4(222) + foo4(601);
}
// CHECK: define void @foo5()
// CHECK-NOT: switch
// CHECK: }
void foo5(){
switch(0){
default:
if (0) {
}
}
}
// CHECK: define void @foo6()
// CHECK-NOT: switch
// CHECK: }
void foo6(){
switch(0){
}
}
// CHECK: define void @foo7()
// CHECK-NOT: switch
// CHECK: }
void foo7(){
switch(0){
foo7();
}
}
// CHECK: define i32 @f8(
// CHECK: ret i32 3
// CHECK: }
int f8(unsigned x) {
switch(x) {
default:
return 3;
case 0xFFFFFFFF ... 1: // This range should be empty because x is unsigned.
return 0;
}
}
// Ensure that default after a case range is not ignored.
//
// CHECK: define i32 @f9()
// CHECK: ret i32 10
// CHECK: }
static int f9_0(unsigned x) {
switch(x) {
case 10 ... 0xFFFFFFFF:
return 0;
default:
return 10;
}
}
int f9() {
return f9_0(2);
}
// Ensure that this doesn't compile to infinite loop in g() due to
// miscompilation of fallthrough from default to a (tested) case
// range.
//
// CHECK: define i32 @f10()
// CHECK: ret i32 10
// CHECK: }
static int f10_0(unsigned x) {
switch(x) {
default:
x += 1;
case 10 ... 0xFFFFFFFF:
return 0;
}
}
int f10() {
f10_0(1);
return 10;
}
// This generated incorrect code because of poor switch chaining.
//
// CHECK: define i32 @f11(
// CHECK: ret i32 3
// CHECK: }
int f11(int x) {
switch(x) {
default:
return 3;
case 10 ... 0xFFFFFFFF:
return 0;
}
}
// This just asserted because of the way case ranges were calculated.
//
// CHECK: define i32 @f12(
// CHECK: ret i32 3
// CHECK: }
int f12(int x) {
switch (x) {
default:
return 3;
case 10 ... -1:
return 0;
}
}
// Make sure return is not constant (if empty range is skipped or miscompiled)
//
// CHECK: define i32 @f13(
// CHECK: ret i32 %
// CHECK: }
int f13(unsigned x) {
switch(x) {
case 2:
// fallthrough empty range
case 10 ... 9:
return 10;
default:
return 0;
}
}
// Don't delete a basic block that we want to introduce later references to.
// This isn't really specific to switches, but it's easy to show with them.
// rdar://problem/8837067
int f14(int x) {
switch (x) {
// case range so that the case block has no predecessors
case 0 ... 15:
// any expression which doesn't introduce a new block
(void) 0;
// kaboom
default:
return x;
}
}