comex added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp:2654-2655
@@ -2648,4 +2653,4 @@
case Declarator::ConversionIdContext:
if (!SemaRef.getLangOpts().CPlusPlus14)
- Error = 12; // conversion-type-id
+ Error = 14; // conversion-type-id
break;
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> Do you really want to allow `__auto_type` here? This is inconsistent with
> what you do for return types.
Also a mistake.
================
Comment at: test/SemaCXX/auto-type-from-cxx.cpp:14
@@ +13,3 @@
+ auto _ = [](__auto_type f) {}; // expected-error {{'__auto_type' not allowed
in lambda parameter}}
+ __auto_type g = 2;
+ struct BitField { int field:2; };
----------------
thakis wrote:
> Shouldn't this say "warning: __auto_type is a gnu extension" (since this uses
> -std=c++14, not -std=gnu++14)?
Hmm... when I added `ext_auto_type` to the .td, I didn't notice the difference
between Extension and ExtWarn. Since the patch currently uses Extension, it
won't warn by default, but will with `-pedantic`, `-Wgnu`, or
`-Wgnu-auto-type`. The C test uses `-pedantic` so it gets the warning.
Is there an explicit policy on which extensions should be ExtWarn? Looking at
the rest of that file, ExtWarns seem to be mostly either (a) standardized
extensions (which will warn if `-std` is too early) and (b) 'extensions' that
are more like "Clang will accept your buggy code" than features. Most GNU
extensions are just Extension, so I think it makes sense to do the same for
`__auto_type`.
I could update the C++ test to add `-pedantic`, but arguably it makes more
sense to test the fact that the warning is not emitted by default.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D12686
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
