hubert.reinterpretcast added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/cxx2c-placeholder-vars.cpp:2
+// RUN: %clang -cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify -std=c++2c -Wunused-parameter
-Wunused %s
+
+void static_var() {
----------------
cor3ntin wrote:
> cor3ntin wrote:
> > cor3ntin wrote:
> > > hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:
> > > > hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:
> > > > > hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:
> > > > > > hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:
> > > > > > > Can we have tests for:
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > struct { int _, _; } a = { ._ = 0 };
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > struct A {
> > > > > > > A();
> > > > > > > int _, _;
> > > > > > > };
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A::A() : _(0) {}
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > Codegen test for
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > static union { int _ = 42; };
> > > > > > int &ref = _;
> > > > > > int foo() { return 13; }
> > > > > > static union { int _ = foo(); };
> > > > > > int main(void) { return ref; }
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > might be interesting.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I suspect that this case was missed in the committee discussion of
> > > > > > the paper @cor3ntin.
> > > > > Less controversial tests to consider:
> > > > > ```
> > > > > struct A {
> > > > > int _;
> > > > > union { int _; };
> > > > > };
> > > > > struct B { union { int _, _; }; };
> > > > > ```
> > > > >
> > > > In a similar vein, a codegen test for:
> > > > ```
> > > > struct A { A(); };
> > > > inline void f [[gnu::used]]() {
> > > > static union { A _{}; };
> > > > static union { A _{}; };
> > > > }
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps not intended to be allowed though (premise was no symbols with
> > > > "linkage"?)
> > > What's interesting about
> > >
> > > ```
> > > static union { int _ = 42; };
> > > int &ref = _;
> > > int foo() { return 13; }
> > > static union { int _ = foo(); };
> > > int main(void) { return ref; }
> > > ```
> > > ?
> > > It's already supported by clang https://godbolt.org/z/6j89EdnEo
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm adding the other tests (and fixing the associated bugs, of which
> > > there were a few...)
> > >
> > > Perhaps not intended to be allowed though (premise was no symbols with
> > > "linkage"?)
> >
> >
> > Yes, this should be ill-formed, anything where we would have to mangle
> > multiple `_` should be ill-formed.
> > I do believe that's covered though, `_` does not have storage duration.
> > What's interesting about
> >
> > ```
> > static union { int _ = 42; };
> > int &ref = _;
> > int foo() { return 13; }
> > static union { int _ = foo(); };
> > int main(void) { return ref; }
> > ```
> > ?
> > It's already supported by clang https://godbolt.org/z/6j89EdnEo
> >
> >
> > I'm adding the other tests (and fixing the associated bugs, of which there
> > were a few...)
> >
>
> I see it now. Thanks, I hate it. There is apparently a preexisting bug.
> And yes, i think we should say something about members of anonymous union
> declared at namespace scope in the standard.... I realize now this is missing
> Thanks for catching that.
> Thanks for catching that.
Glad to be of help!
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D153536/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D153536
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
