nickdesaulniers added a comment.
Thanks for the patch, I look forward to this feature!
I think the changes in `test/SemaCXX/warn-unused-label-error.cpp`,
`test/Sema/block-literal.c`, and `test/Sema/address_spaces.c` should not be
committed (2 look like unrelated cleanups?).
================
Comment at: lib/Parse/ParseStmt.cpp:110-111
assert((Attrs.empty() || Res.isInvalid() || Res.isUsable()) &&
"attributes on empty statement");
----------------
Wouldn't this statement have to change? `__attribute__((fallthrough))` //is//
an "attribute on [an] empty statement." Maybe this is not the correct place to
try to parse a GNU attr?
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/AnalysisBasedWarnings.cpp:1279
continue;
- if (S.getLangOpts().CPlusPlus11) {
+ if (S.getLangOpts().CPlusPlus11 || S.getLangOpts().C99) {
const Stmt *Term = B->getTerminatorStmt();
----------------
Probably should additionally/instead check `S.getLangOpts().GNUMode` (since
these are GNU C style attributes)? I guess we want these attributes to be
supported in C regardless of `-std=`?
================
Comment at: test/Sema/block-literal.c:44
takeblock(^{ x = 4; }); // expected-error {{variable is not assignable
(missing __block type specifier)}}
- __block y = 7; // expected-warning {{type specifier missing, defaults to
'int'}}
- takeblock(^{ y = 8; });
+ __block y = 7; // expected-error {{use of undeclared identifier 'y'}}
+ takeblock(^{ y = 8; }); // expected-error {{use of undeclared identifier
'y'}}
----------------
xbolva00 wrote:
> I tried look at this, but I have no idea how my change to parse GNU affects
> __block.
If you remove your change to `lib/Parse/ParseStmt.cpp`, does this test still
fail in this way? Did you test this on an assertion enabled build
(`-DLLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS=ON`)? (I would have expected the assertion I
commented on above to fail.)
================
Comment at: test/Sema/fallthrough-attr.c:1
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -std=c99 -verify -Wimplicit-fallthrough %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -std=c11 -verify -Wimplicit-fallthrough %s
----------------
would you mind adding a run for `-std=gnu89`? In particular, I'm worried about
you're above change checking c99.
Repository:
rC Clang
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D63260/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D63260
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
