vsavchenko added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Parser/stmt-attributes.c:5
+
+ __attribute__((unknown_attribute)); // expected-warning {{unknown
attribute 'unknown_attribute' ignored}}
+ __attribute__((unknown_attribute)) {} // expected-warning {{unknown
attribute 'unknown_attribute' ignored}}
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Given that these are parser tests, I think you can drop the attribute name
> itself except in the cases where you explicitly want to test that an unknown
> attribute introduces the start of a declaration (or things where the
> attribute identifier matters for some reason). This will reduce the amount of
> `expected-warning` comments we need to add.
>
> Also, because this change impacts C++ and ObjC/C++ as well, I think we should
> have some tests for language-specific constructs like lambdas, range-based
> for loops, blocks, etc.
This test is mostly a copy-paste of a similar test for C++11 statement
attributes.
I think that these cases show that GNU spelling for attributes doesn't break
anything if we put it in front of these various statements. And you are
absolutely right that we need to add more cases for C++ and Obj-C constructs.
But I don't understand about 'unknown_attribute'. What should I replace it
with?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D93630/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D93630
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
