condT.getAsString());
return QualType();
}
- // now check the two expressions.
- if (lexT->isArithmeticType() && rexT->isArithmeticType()) { // C99 6.5.15p3,5
+
+ // Now check the two expressions.
+
+ // If both operands have arithmetic type, do the usual arithmetic conversions
+ // to find a common type: C99 6.5.15p3,5.
+ if (lexT->isArithmeticType() && rexT->isArithmeticType()) {
UsualArithmeticConversions(lex, rex);
return lex->getType();
}
+
+ // If both operands are the same structure or union type, the result is that
+ // type.
if (const RecordType *LHSRT = lexT->getAsRecordType()) { // C99 6.5.15p3
- if (const RecordType *RHSRT = rexT->getAsRecordType()) {
+ if (const RecordType *RHSRT = rexT->getAsRecordType())
if (LHSRT->getDecl() == RHSRT->getDecl())
- return lexT;
-
- Diag(questionLoc, diag::err_typecheck_cond_incompatible_operands,
- lexT.getAsString(), rexT.getAsString(),
- lex->getSourceRange(), rex->getSourceRange());
- return QualType();
- }
+ // "If both the operands have structure or union type, the result has
+ // that type." This implies that CV qualifiers are dropped.
+ return lexT.getUnqualifiedType();
}
- // C99 6.5.15p3
+
+ // C99 6.5.15p5: "If both operands have void type, the result has void type."
+ if (lexT->isVoidType() && rexT->isVoidType())
+ return lexT.getUnqualifiedType();
+
+ // C99 6.5.15p6 - "if one operand is a null pointer constant, the result has
+ // the type of the other operand."
if (lexT->isPointerType() && rex->isNullPointerConstant(Context)) {
promoteExprToType(rex, lexT); // promote the null to a pointer.
return lexT;
}
}
- if (lexT->isVoidType() && rexT->isVoidType()) // C99 6.5.15p3
- return lexT;
-
+ // Otherwise, the operands are not compatible.
Diag(questionLoc, diag::err_typecheck_cond_incompatible_operands,
lexT.getAsString(), rexT.getAsString(),
lex->getSourceRange(), rex->getSourceRange());