rsmith added a comment.
Downgrading the C89 warning for duplicate qualifiers from typedefs / __typeof
from `ExtWarn` to `Extension` seems very reasonable to me. However, I don't see
a justification for removing the warning for duplicate explicit (non-typedef)
qualifiers in C99, nor for downgrading the corresponding `ExtWarn` to an
`Extension` in our other language modes; that seems like a regression.
================
Comment at: include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:197
+ InGroup<DuplicateDeclSpecifier>;
+def extwarn_duplicate_declspec : ExtWarn<"duplicate '%0' declaration
specifier">,
InGroup<DuplicateDeclSpecifier>;
----------------
Please follow our naming convention for diagnostic names: both `Extension` and
`ExtWarn` diagnostics should start `ext_`.
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/DeclSpec.cpp:441-442
else
- DiagID = IsExtension ? diag::ext_duplicate_declspec :
- diag::warn_duplicate_declspec;
+ DiagID = IsExtension ? diag::ext_duplicate_declspec
+ : diag::extwarn_duplicate_declspec;
return true;
----------------
This doesn't look like a correct change. When `IsExtension` is false, the
duplicate is not ill-formed, so we shouldn't use an `ExtWarn` diagnostic (which
results in an error under `-pedantic-errors`).
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/DeclSpec.cpp:854-857
+ // Duplicates are permitted in C99 onwards, but are not permitted in C++. In
+ // C90, they are a warning if -pedantic. We do not need to set the
+ // qualifier's location since we already have it.
+ if (TypeQualifiers & T && !Lang.C99) {
----------------
We still want to warn on duplicate decl specifiers in C99 mode.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D52248
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
