// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++11 -fsyntax-only -verify %s template struct A { enum { id = _Generic(T{}, // expected-error {{controlling expression type 'char' not compatible with any generic association type}} int: 1, // expected-note {{compatible type 'int' specified here}} float: 2, U: 3) // expected-error {{type 'int' in generic association compatible with previously specified type 'int'}} }; }; static_assert(A::id == 1, "fail"); static_assert(A::id == 2, "fail"); static_assert(A::id == 3, "fail"); A a1; // expected-note {{in instantiation of template class 'A' requested here}} A a2; // expected-note {{in instantiation of template class 'A' requested here}} template struct B { enum { id = _Generic(T{}, int: 1, // expected-note {{compatible type 'int' specified here}} int: 2, // expected-error {{type 'int' in generic association compatible with previously specified type 'int'}} U: 3) }; }; template struct Or { enum { result = Arg | Or::result }; }; template struct Or { enum { result = Arg }; }; template struct TypeMask { enum { result = Or<_Generic(Args{}, int: 1, long: 2, short: 4, float: 8)...>::result }; }; static_assert(TypeMask::result == 7, "fail"); static_assert(TypeMask::result == 12, "fail"); static_assert(TypeMask::result == 9, "fail"); struct Test { int i; }; void unreachable_associations(const int i, const Test t) { // FIXME: it's not clear to me whether we intended to deviate from the C // semantics in terms of how qualifiers are handled, so this documents the // existing behavior but perhaps not the desired behavior. static_assert( _Generic(i, const int : 1, // expected-warning {{due to lvalue conversion of the controlling expression, association of type 'const int' will never be selected because it is qualified}} volatile int : 2, // expected-warning {{due to lvalue conversion of the controlling expression, association of type 'volatile int' will never be selected because it is qualified}} int[12] : 3, // expected-warning {{due to lvalue conversion of the controlling expression, association of type 'int[12]' will never be selected because it is of array type}} int : 4, default : 5 ) == 4, "we had better pick int, not const int!"); static_assert( _Generic(t, Test : 1, const Test : 2, // Ok in C++, warned in C default : 3 ) == 2, "we had better pick const Test, not Test!"); // C++-specific result } namespace GH55562 { struct S { // expected-note {{declared here}} int i; }; void func(struct S s) { // We would previously reject this because the parser thought 'struct S :' // was the start of a definition (with a base class specifier); it's not, it // is an elaborated type specifier followed by the association's value and // it should work the same as in C. (void)_Generic(s, struct S : 1); // The rest of these cases test that we still produce a reasonable diagnostic // when referencing an unknown type or trying to define a type in other ways. (void)_Generic(s, struct T : 1); // expected-error {{type 'struct T' in generic association incomplete}} (void)_Generic(s, struct U { int a; } : 1); // expected-error {{'U' cannot be defined in a type specifier}} (void)_Generic(s, struct V : S); // expected-error {{'S' does not refer to a value}} (void)_Generic(s, struct W : S { int b; } : 1); // expected-error {{expected '(' for function-style cast or type construction}} } } // namespace GH55562