aaron.ballman added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D17709#374561, @rnk wrote:
> Unless there is a compelling example of Microsoft or a popular third-party
> header relying on this behavior, I don't think we should implement it.
Agreed.
================
Comment at: lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp:4811
@@ -4810,2 +4810,3 @@
case tok::kw___unaligned:
- if (AttrReqs & AR_DeclspecAttributesParsed) {
+ // Allow __unaligned in function definition after a parameter list
+ if ((AttrReqs & AR_DeclspecAttributesParsed) ||
----------------
olga.a.chupina wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > MSDN suggests that __unaligned is only valid on a pointer declaration. Is
> > there something this is expected to support, or does MSVC just happen to
> > silently accept the keyword in this position?
> It rather silently accepts the keyword in this position.
I'm not keen on inferring undocumented behaviors from MSVC keywords; we should
only accept if there's some reason to do so (we don't want to hijack MSVC's
keyword and give it different behavior than MSVC).
http://reviews.llvm.org/D17709
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
