rjmccall added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp:5745 + // C99 6.5.2.5p6: Function scope compound literals must have automatic + // storage which generally excludes address space-qualified ones. + Diag(LParenLoc, diag::err_compound_literal_with_address_space) ---------------- ebevhan wrote: > rjmccall wrote: > > Usually when we mention a standard section like this, it's a prelude to a > > quote. If you're just paraphrasing, I think we can trust people to find > > the right standard section. > Hm, alright. I figured it was better to both provide the exact section and > also include a summary here so you don't have to look it up. > > Should I change it or is it good anyway? It's fine to include a reference to the standard. The way you've done it here makes it look like a quote at first glance, which it isn't. You should just say "See C99 6.5.2.5p6" if you think that's an important citation to make. In this case, though, I don't think it's a particularly valuable citation. Remember that this code is in the middle of a function dedicated to the rules of section 6.5.2.5, so unless you're actually quoting the text because there's some important subtlety, I think you can assume general familiarity (and/or that the reader has the standard open). There *is* a better citation, though: the Embedded C spec explicitly says: If the compound literal occurs inside the body of a function, the type name shall not be qualified by an address-space qualifier. I'd cite it with a title like "Embedded C modifications to C99 6.5.2.5". By the way, LLVM code style leaves a space between `if` and the opening parenthesis of the condition. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D51426 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
