efriedma added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp:11571 + Diag(Loc, + getLangOpts().C11 + ? diag::ext_typecheck_compare_complete_incomplete_pointers ---------------- rsmith wrote: > pestctrl wrote: > > efriedma wrote: > > > I think this condition is backwards? Should be `!getLangOpts().C11`. > > > You want the warning with `-std=c99 -pedantic`, you don't want the > > > warning with `std=c11 -pedantic`. > > I don't think it's backwards. If getLangOpts().C11, then it is an > > extension. Otherwise, it is the warning. I can switch the conditions if it > > is confusing though. > "Extension" means "this is invalid code that we're accepting anyway" -- > that's what this is in C99. In C11, I think we shouldn't be diagnosing at all. > > Has anyone checked whether WG14 removed this restriction in C11 as a DR > resolution? If so, we shouldn't be diagnosing it at all, in any language mode. I tracked down the proposal for the change; it's http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1439.pdf . Beyond the reference to http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/dr_314.htm , I can't find any relevant defect report. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D79945/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D79945 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
