rsmith accepted this revision. rsmith added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
In D66364#1638026 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66364#1638026>, @aaron.ballman wrote: > @rsmith are you fine with implementing the diagnostic for these keywords > piecemeal based on the pattern from this patch, or do you want to see an > omnibus patch that adds all of them at once? I'm fine with doing it piecemeal. ================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticParseKinds.td:130 +def ext_c11_feature : Extension< "%0 is a C11-specific feature">, InGroup<C11>; ---------------- Please consider rewording this to "%0 is a C11 extension" to match what we do for C++XY extensions. (This will also start looking a little silly once C20 adoption starts; features aren't C11-specific if they're also part of C20.) As a separate change, though :) ================ Comment at: clang/test/Sema/thread-specifier.c:127-160 +// expected-warning@14 {{_Thread_local is a C11-specific feature}} +// expected-warning@15 {{_Thread_local is a C11-specific feature}} +// expected-warning@16 {{_Thread_local is a C11-specific feature}} +// expected-warning@22 {{_Thread_local is a C11-specific feature}} +// expected-warning@23 {{_Thread_local is a C11-specific feature}} +// expected-warning@31 {{_Thread_local is a C11-specific feature}} +// expected-warning@40 {{_Thread_local is a C11-specific feature}} ---------------- Hardcoding line numbers like this makes test maintenance painful. Using a different verify prefix seems like the easiest way to handle this: ``` // RUN: %clang_cc1 [...] -D__thread=_Thread_local -std=c++98 -verify=expected,thread-local [...] __thread int t1; // thread-local-warning {{_Thread_local is a C11-specific feature}} ``` Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D66364/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D66364 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
