aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticParseKinds.td:875-876 "C++ standards before C++20">, InGroup<CXXPre20Compat>, DefaultIgnore; +def err_anon_bitfield_member_init : Error< + "anonymous bit-field cannot have an in-class initializer">; def err_incomplete_array_member_init: Error< ---------------- rsmith wrote: > Please retain the diagnostic wording using proper standard terminology; the > other diagnostics say "in-class initializer" because they predate the > existence of the standard terminology and haven't been fixed yet. (Fixing > them -- and renaming the corresponding functions throughout Clang -- would be > great if you feel so inclined.) Sounds good to me, and I can do the rest of the cleanup as an NFC commit once this lands. ================ Comment at: clang/lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp:4127-4129 + // Anonymous bit-fields cannot specify attributes; the attributes + // appertain to the type specifier for the bit-field instead. Provide a + // kinder parsing error than if we just let parsing happen organically. ---------------- rsmith wrote: > I think this will regress our diagnostics for this (probably more common) > case: > > ``` > struct X { > int a, [[attr]] b; > }; > ``` > > Instead, how about we unconditionally `DiagnoseAndSkipCXX11Attributes()` > before and after we parse GNU attributes in the `if (!FirstDeclarator)` check > up above? (Aside: we should probably be better about handling mixed sequences > of GNU and C++11 attributes in general.) Good catch, I've made the changes. And I agree about attribute parsing order; I'd really like to take another stab at fixing that if I get the chance. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D88333/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D88333 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits