efriedma added a comment. In D132952#3759226 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D132952#3759226>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
>> We could theoretically mess with the AST representation somehow, but I don't >> see any compelling reason to. We probably just want to emit the >> warn_vla_used diagnostic somewhere else. > > Yeah, re-reading the C standard, I think I got VM types slightly wrong. > Consider: > > void func(int n, int array[n]); > > `array` is a VLA (C2x 6.7.6.2p4) before pointer adjustment (C2x 6.7.6.3p6), > which makes `func` a VM type (C2x 6.7.6p3), not `array`. The type of parameter array after promotion (which is the type that matters for almost any purpose), is `int*`. That isn't variably modified. And the function type is just `void(int,int*)`; there's no way we can possibly treat that as variably modified. If you wrote, say `void func(int n, int array[n][n])`, then array is variably modified. "func" is still not variably modified, I think? "array" is not part of the "nested sequence of declarators", despite the fact that the parameter list contains a variably modified type. At least, that's clang's current interpretation of the rules. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D132952/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D132952 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
