================
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c2y %s -verify -Wno-gnu-alignof-expression
+
+/* WG14 N3244: Partial
+ * Slay Some Earthly Demons I
+ *
+ * NB: the committee adopted:
+ * Annex J Item 21 (including additional change) -- no, we lack explicit
documentation
+ * Annex J Item 56 -- yes
+ * Annex J Item 57 Option 1 -- yes
+ * Annex J Item 67 -- no
+ * Annex J Item 69 (alternative wording for semantics) -- no
+ */
+
+void reg_array(void) {
+ // Decay of an array with the register storage class specifier has gone from
+ // explicit undefined behavior to be implementation defined instead. Clang
+ // does not support this.
+ register int array[10];
+ (void)sizeof(array); // okay
+ int *vp = array; // expected-error {{address of register variable
requested}}
+ int val = array[0]; // expected-error {{address of register variable
requested}}
+}
+
+struct F; // expected-note {{forward declaration of 'struct F'}}
+void incomplete_no_linkage(struct F); // okay
+void incomplete_no_linkage(struct F f) { // expected-error {{variable has
incomplete type 'struct F'}}
+ struct G g; // expected-error {{variable has incomplete type 'struct G'}} \
+ expected-note {{forward declaration of 'struct G'}}
+ int i[]; // expected-error {{definition of variable with array type needs
an explicit size or an initializer}}
+}
+
+void block_scope_non_extern_func_decl(void) {
+ static void f(void); // expected-error {{function declared in block scope
cannot have 'static' storage class}}
+ extern void g(void); // okay
+ __private_extern__ void h(void); // okay
+}
+
+// FIXME: this function should be diagnosed as it is never defined in the TU.
+extern inline void never_defined_extern_inline(void);
+
+// While this declaration is fine because the function is defined within the
TU.
+extern inline void is_defined_extern_inline(void);
+extern inline void is_defined_extern_inline(void) {}
+
+int NoAlignmentOnOriginalDecl;
+// FIXME: the original declaration has no alignment specifier, so the
+// declaration below should be diagnosed due to the incompatible alignment
+// specifier.
+_Alignas(8) int NoAlignmentOnOriginalDecl;
+_Static_assert(_Alignof(NoAlignmentOnOriginalDecl) == 8, "");
+
+_Alignas(8) int AlignmentOnOriginalDecl;
+// FIXME: this should be accepted because the redeclaration has no alignment
+// specifier.
+int AlignmentOnOriginalDecl; // expected-error {{'_Alignas' must be specified
on definition if it is specified on any declaration}}
+_Static_assert(_Alignof(AlignmentOnOriginalDecl) == 8, "");
+
+long long CompatibleAlignment;
+_Static_assert(_Alignof(CompatibleAlignment) == _Alignof(long long), "");
+_Alignas(_Alignof(long long)) long long CompatibleAlignment; // Okay,
alignment is the same as the implied alignment
+
+_Alignas(_Alignof(long long)) long long CompatibleAlignment2;
+// FIXME: this should be accepted because the redeclaration has no alignment
+// specifier.
+long long CompatibleAlignment2; // expected-error {{'_Alignas' must be
specified on definition if it is specified on any declaration}}
----------------
AaronBallman wrote:
Sure! I could also add some explicitly incompatible alignments as well.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/98525
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
