erichkeane added a comment.
In D150875#4353535 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D150875#4353535>, @rsmith wrote: > In D150875#4353384 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D150875#4353384>, @erichkeane > wrote: > >> We are the only of the major compilers with this "extension" (I hesitate to >> call it that, as I'm not sure this FITS in the 'extension's permitted by >> standard) > > I'm not objecting to removing this extension, but... do you have reason to > doubt that it's conforming, or just a lack of confidence that it is? (If the > `SFINAEFailure` change wasn't enough, then it's not clear to me why this > change would be. We use a `SFINAEFailure` diagnostic for other extensions, > and if that's not sufficient for conformance then we probably have a lot of > conformance gaps of this kind.) No, just lack of confidence. I guess if it is supposed to be ill-formed, we can permit it (except in SFINAE?), right? The intent here is mostly just for 'cleanup' as we see it. ================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:6985 +def err_typecheck_indirection_through_void_pointer_cpp + : Error<"ISO C++ does not allow indirection on operand of type %0">; def warn_indirection_through_null : Warning< ---------------- rsmith wrote: > We normally only use this "ISO C++ does not allow" phrasing for extensions > (with the implication being that ISO C++ doesn't allow it, but Clang does). > Can you rephrase the diagnostic too, to remove those unnecessary words? I definitely can. Though, I wonder if we can just use the err_typecheck_indirection_requires_pointer above instead and remove this diagnostic? We might need to change that to `indirection requires non-void pointer operand (%0 invalid)`. WDYT? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D150875/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D150875 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
