aaron.ballman marked 2 inline comments as done.
aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaExprMember.cpp:1300
+ // warning defaults to an error.
+ if (const auto *ATy = BaseType->getAs<AtomicType>()) {
+ S.Diag(OpLoc, diag::warn_atomic_member_access);
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> This seems to apply to both C and C++. I guess "_Atomic" is C only, so we
> get to define its behavior for C++?
>
> What does GCC do in C++ mode?
Clang supports `_Atomic` in C++ as an extension (with the C semantics), GCC
does not.
However, after doing some testing, I actually question whether Clang supports
`_Atomic` in C++ more or just "pretends everything will work out fine in C++
mode but nobody ever actually checked that". I'm not going to add additional
test coverage for this because I'm going to see just how many issues I spot in
C++ first (it may be a better approach to disable the extension in C++).
================
Comment at: clang/test/Sema/atomic-expr.c:85
+ x.val = 12; // expected-error {{accessing a member of an atomic structure or
union is undefined behavior}}
+ xp->val = 12; // expected-error {{accessing a member of an atomic structure
or union is undefined behavior}}
+
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> This still catches RHS access as well, right?
>
> Also, does it still 'work' with the non-qualifier version of _Atomic?
> This still catches RHS access as well, right?
Yes, I'll add tests.
> Also, does it still 'work' with the non-qualifier version of _Atomic?
Yes, I'll add a test.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D122656/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D122656
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
