nickdesaulniers added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/Sema/address_spaces.c:12
{
- _AS2 *x;// expected-warning {{type specifier missing, defaults to 'int'}}
+ _AS2 *x;// expected-error {{use of undeclared identifier 'x'}}
_AS1 float * _AS2 *B;
----------------
efriedma wrote:
> xbolva00 wrote:
> > nickdesaulniers wrote:
> > > efriedma wrote:
> > > > xbolva00 wrote:
> > > > > I think this is an acceptable change..
> > > > This is scary. gcc and clang both parse `void f() {
> > > > __attribute((aligned)) *x; }` etc. as a declaration; I don't think we
> > > > want to change that, even if that usage is a bit dubious in modern C.
> > > > And it's not clear to me if there are other implications here; does
> > > > this affect the handling of statement/declaration ambiguity in C++?
> > > It's a pointer to implicit int. Either way, I think the change and the
> > > comments are polluting this code review, hence the suggestion to submit
> > > as a separate individual patch.
> > But this patch causes changes in those files. So I dont know what to split
> > here...
> This is caused by the change to lib/Parse/ParseStmt.cpp, right? You should
> be able to split that into a separate patch, even if there aren't any usable
> statement attributes without the other parts of the patch.
Is it because the added call to `MaybeParseGNUAttributes()` in
`lib/Parse/ParseStmt.cpp` can eventually produce this error? Your change as is
seems to be breaking declarations of implicit integers.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D63260/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D63260
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
