aaron.ballman requested changes to this revision.
aaron.ballman added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
Thank you for working on this, it's a problem that's annoyed me for a while but
I've never found a satisfactory solution to. Unfortunately, it causes us to
reject valid code (which is the same problem I kept running up against when I
last tried).
================
Comment at: clang/test/Index/blocks.c:8
static struct foo _foo;
- __block i = 0;
+ __block int i = 0;
^ int_t(struct foo *foo) { return (int_t) foo->x + i; }(&_foo);
----------------
This change should not be necessary as the original code was valid (and I think
was testing that validity, but could probably use a comment to make that
explicit).
================
Comment at: clang/test/Sema/address_spaces.c:12
{
- _AS2 *x;// expected-warning {{type specifier missing, defaults to 'int'}}
+ _AS2 *x; // expected-error {{'address_space' attribute cannot be applied to
a statement}}
+ // expected-error@-1 {{use of undeclared identifier 'x'}}
----------------
This breaks valid C89 code that uses implicit int (it is also a less helpful
diagnostic, but that's secondary to the rejects valid bug).
================
Comment at: clang/test/Sema/block-literal.c:44
takeblock(^{ x = 4; }); // expected-error {{variable is not assignable
(missing __block type specifier)}}
- __block y = 7; // expected-warning {{type specifier missing, defaults to
'int'}}
- takeblock(^{ y = 8; });
+ __block y = 7; // expected-error {{use of undeclared identifier
'y'}}
+ __block int z = 7;
----------------
This is also valid C89 that should not be rejected.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaTemplate/address_space-dependent.cpp:12-13
- __attribute__((address_space(J))) * x; // expected-error {{C++ requires a
type specifier for all declarations}}
+ __attribute__((address_space(J))) * x; // expected-error {{use of undeclared
identifier 'x'}}
+ // expected-error@-1 {{'address_space' attribute cannot be applied to a
statement}}
----------------
I think this is a pretty unfortunate degradation of diagnostic wording. The
code looks like a somewhat validish declaration, so the diagnostic about a
missing type specifier is more helpful than a use of an undeclared identifier
that the user is likely trying to declare.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D93630/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D93630
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
