aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:3557
+def warn_availability_fuchsia_unavailable_minor : Warning<
+ "Fuchsia API Level only support 'major', not '.minor[.subminor]'">,
+ InGroup<Availability>;
----------------
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Basic/Targets/OSTargets.h:893
Builder.defineMacro("_GNU_SOURCE");
+ Builder.defineMacro("FUCHSIA_API_LEVEL", Twine(Opts.FuchsiaAPILevel));
+ this->PlatformName = "fuchsia";
----------------
I think this macro should be using a reserved name, as suggested by @phosek.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Frontend/attr-availability-fuchsia.c:2
+// Test that `-mfuchsia-version` is propagated to cc1.
+// RUN: %clang -target x86_64-unknown-fuchsia -ffuchsia-api-level=16 -c %s
-### 2>&1| FileCheck %s
+//
----------------
Can you also add a test that shows how we handle `-ffuchsia-api-level=16.0.0`?
================
Comment at: clang/test/Frontend/attr-availability-fuchsia.c:2
+// Test that `-mfuchsia-version` is propagated to cc1.
+// RUN: %clang -target x86_64-unknown-fuchsia -mfuchsia-version=16 -c %s -###
|& FileCheck %s
+//
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Is `|&` intentional? I think that's causing shell parse errors on Windows
> (same for the other test).
>
> Also should this test be in `Driver` instead as it's testing the driver
> functionality?
This test should be in `Driver`, right?
================
Comment at: clang/test/Sema/attr-availability-fuchsia.c:14
+void f5(int) __attribute__((availability(ios, introduced = 3.2),
availability(fuchsia, unavailable)));
// expected-note{{'f5' has been explicitly marked unavailable here}}
+void f6(int) __attribute__((availability(fuchsia, introduced = 16.0)));
// expected-warning {{Fuchsia API Level only support 'major', not
'.minor[.subminor]}}
+void f7(int) __attribute__((availability(fuchsia, introduced = 16.1))); //
expected-warning {{Fuchsia API Level only support 'major', not
'.minor[.subminor]}}
----------------
FWIW, this surprises me. I would have expected that `16`, `16.0`, and `16.0.0`
were all equivalent and the issue was with specifying a nonzero value for
those. I've suggested new wording for the diagnostic that might make it more
clear.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D108592/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D108592
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
