iana added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Headers/stdarg.c:34
+ __va_copy(g, v);
+ va_copy(g, v); // c89-error{{implicit}} c89-note{{va_copy}}
c99-no-diagnostics
+}
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> You should spell out these diagnostics, and I think `c99-no-diagnostics`
> should be placed up by the RUN lines so it's more obvious that we expect no
> diagnostics in C99 mode.
>
> Actually, this file should perhaps be split into two files as they're testing
> different things. (I was tripped up seeing no-diagnostics but we have
> `c99-error` entries above, that's when I realized the split file was being
> used differently in the RUN lines which is a bit novel.) But I'm not certain
> I fully understand what your comment means about why we're using split file
> in the first place, so I might be missing something.
It's only trying to test what including <stdarg.h> gets you by default. The
first chunk is to prove that nothing is provided via built-ins or anything like
if you don't include anything. The second chunk shows that you get the expected
declarations in each standard mode if you include <stdarg.h> with no `__need_`
macros.
The problem is this.
```
va_copy(g, v); // The first time you get: implicitly declaring library function
'va_copy'
va_copy(g, v); // But now the compiler has decided that va_copy has a
declaration, so you don't get any diagnostics even though va_copy doesn't have
its real declaration, I think the compiler assumes 'int va_copy(int, int)' or
something like that.
```
Maybe we don't need to test the include-nothing case both here and
stdargneeds.c?
D157757 has the same problem for `offsetof` but since it uses C23 also, the
diagnostics get repeated.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D157793/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D157793
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
