Be a little more permissive than C99: allow 'unsigned' to be used for
the field width and precision of a format specifier instead of just
'int'. This matches GCC, and fixes <rdar://problem/6079850>.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@94856 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
diff --git a/test/Sema/format-strings.c b/test/Sema/format-strings.c
index 166e888..94fb593 100644
--- a/test/Sema/format-strings.c
+++ b/test/Sema/format-strings.c
@@ -40,11 +40,15 @@
// rdar://6079877
printf("abc"
- "%*d", (unsigned) 1, 1); // expected-warning {{field width should have type 'int'}}
+ "%*d", 1, 1); // no-warning
printf("abc\
def"
- "%*d", (unsigned) 1, 1); // expected-warning {{field width should have type 'int'}}
-
+ "%*d", 1, 1); // no-warning
+
+ // <rdar://problem/6079850>, allow 'unsigned' (instead of 'int') to be used for both
+ // the field width and precision. This deviates from C99, but is reasonably safe
+ // and is also accepted by GCC.
+ printf("%*d", (unsigned) 1, 1); // no-warning
}
void check_conditional_literal(const char* s, int i) {
@@ -137,6 +141,7 @@
void torture(va_list v8) {
vprintf ("%*.*d", v8); // no-warning
+
}
void test10(int x, float f, int i) {