https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46645
Bug ID: 46645
Summary: Clang treats differently on function return type with
a union
Product: clang
Version: trunk
Hardware: PC
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P
Component: Frontend
Assignee: unassignedclangb...@nondot.org
Reporter: haoxi...@gmail.com
CC: llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org, neeil...@live.com,
richard-l...@metafoo.co.uk
Hi, all.
This code, test.cc, line 1 and 2 equals to line 3 (right?). Clang treats it
differently.
$cat test.cc
typedef union{} typedef_union;
typename :: typedef_union foo1 () {}
union {} foo2 () {}
$clang++ -c -w test.cc
test.cc:3:1: error: '(anonymous union at test.cc:3:1)' cannot be defined in the
result type of a function
union {} foo2 () {}
^
1 error generated.
Clang rejects line 3 but accepts line 2.
While in GCC
$g++ -c -w test.cc
test.cc:2:13: error: ‘class’ tag used in naming ‘union typedef_union’
[-fpermissive]
2 | typename :: typedef_union foo1 () {}
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
test.cc:1:17: note: ‘union typedef_union’ was previously declared here
1 | typedef union{} typedef_union;
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
test.cc:3:1: error: new types may not be defined in a return type
3 | union {} foo2 () {}
| ^~~~~
test.cc:3:1: note: (perhaps a semicolon is missing after the definition of
‘<unnamed union>’)
GCC emits two errors in line 2 and line 3.
I guess Clang might treat the line 2 and line 3 equally. So is this a Clang's
accept-invalid bug or GCC's reject-valid?
Thanks,
Haoxin
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug._______________________________________________
llvm-bugs mailing list
llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
