diff options
author | Andreas Rumpf <rumpf_a@web.de> | 2017-11-02 10:46:30 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | Andreas Rumpf <rumpf_a@web.de> | 2017-11-02 10:46:30 +0100 |
commit | 1eaeccc15d15d15d2f62ea1648f7dd64722dbd37 (patch) | |
tree | b922cdabc780fa3a8837a6804d2df31793d9e2ca /tinyc/tests/tests2/87_dead_code.c | |
parent | e9243a16167b24899d4fcf051f3252b3a5804811 (diff) | |
parent | bd19b5f4d36bb40b4af93d7e15fdfa582e9fe3b7 (diff) | |
download | Nim-1eaeccc15d15d15d2f62ea1648f7dd64722dbd37.tar.gz |
Merge branch 'devel' into araq
Diffstat (limited to 'tinyc/tests/tests2/87_dead_code.c')
-rw-r--r-- | tinyc/tests/tests2/87_dead_code.c | 122 |
1 files changed, 122 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/tinyc/tests/tests2/87_dead_code.c b/tinyc/tests/tests2/87_dead_code.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000..98d4566c5 --- /dev/null +++ b/tinyc/tests/tests2/87_dead_code.c @@ -0,0 +1,122 @@ +/* This checks various ways of dead code inside if statements + where there are non-obvious ways of how the code is actually + not dead due to reachable by labels. */ +extern int printf (const char *, ...); +static void kb_wait_1(void) +{ + unsigned long timeout = 2; + do { + /* Here the else arm is a statement expression that's supposed + to be suppressed. The label inside the while would unsuppress + code generation again if not handled correctly. And that + would wreak havoc to the cond-expression because there's no + jump-around emitted, the whole statement expression really + needs to not generate code (perhaps except useless forward jumps). */ + (1 ? + printf("timeout=%ld\n", timeout) : + ({ + int i = 1; + while (1) + while (i--) + some_label: + printf("error\n"); + goto some_label; + }) + ); + timeout--; + } while (timeout); +} +int main (void) +{ + int i = 1; + kb_wait_1(); + + /* Simple test of dead code at first sight which isn't actually dead. */ + if (0) { +yeah: + printf ("yeah\n"); + } else { + printf ("boo\n"); + } + if (i--) + goto yeah; + + /* Some more non-obvious uses where the problems are loops, so that even + the first loop statements aren't actually dead. */ + i = 1; + if (0) { + while (i--) { + printf ("once\n"); +enterloop: + printf ("twice\n"); + } + } + if (i >= 0) + goto enterloop; + + /* The same with statement expressions. One might be tempted to + handle them specially by counting if inside statement exprs and + not unsuppressing code at loops at all then. + See kb_wait_1 for the other side of the medal where that wouldn't work. */ + i = ({ + int j = 1; + if (0) { + while (j--) { + printf ("SEonce\n"); + enterexprloop: + printf ("SEtwice\n"); + } + } + if (j >= 0) + goto enterexprloop; + j; }); + + /* The other two loop forms: */ + i = 1; + if (0) { + for (i = 1; i--;) { + printf ("once2\n"); +enterloop2: + printf ("twice2\n"); + } + } + if (i > 0) + goto enterloop2; + + i = 1; + if (0) { + do { + printf ("once3\n"); +enterloop3: + printf ("twice3\n"); + } while (i--); + } + if (i > 0) + goto enterloop3; + + /* And check that case and default labels have the same effect + of disabling code suppression. */ + i = 41; + switch (i) { + if (0) { + printf ("error\n"); + case 42: + printf ("error2\n"); + case 41: + printf ("caseok\n"); + } + } + + i = 41; + switch (i) { + if (0) { + printf ("error3\n"); + default: + printf ("caseok2\n"); + break; + case 42: + printf ("error4\n"); + } + } + return 0; +} |