aaron.ballman marked an inline comment as not done. aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Parse/ParseDeclCXX.cpp:874-876 + if (!getLangOpts().CPlusPlus) + Diag(Tok, diag::warn_cxx_static_assert_in_c) + << FixItHint::CreateReplacement(Tok.getLocation(), "_Static_assert"); ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > rsmith wrote: > > I don't think this diagnostic is useful as-is: on Windows, including > > `<assert.h>` doesn't help because it doesn't `#define static_assert`. And > > people hitting this also can't switch to using `_Static_assert`, because > > MSVC doesn't provide it, only `static_assert`. > > > > If we want to warn here, we could perhaps check whether `<assert.h>` has > > been included, but getting that check correct across PCH / modules is not > > straightforward. (If we knew what include guard the CRT's `assert.h` used > > (if any), I guess we could check whether that's defined, but that'd be a > > bit of a hack.) But I'm somewhat inclined to think we don't have a good way > > to distinguish between the good cases and the bad ones, so we shouldn't > > warn. Hopefully MS will fix their CRT at some point and we can stop > > providing this compatibility hack entirely (or start warning on it by > > default). > Are you sure they don't support `_Static_assert` yet? I seem to be able to > use it fine: https://godbolt.org/z/vG47he > > That said, this does appear to be only available in newer versions of MSVC, > so perhaps you're correct about the diagnostic being a bit unhelpful. My > primary concern is that use of `static_assert` in C is a nonconforming > extension and we default to `-fms-compatibility` on Windows when Clang is > built by MSVC. So it's not difficult to accidentally run into this, but the > only warning we give on it with `-Weverything -pedantic` is how it's not > compatible with C++98. > > WDYT? I suppose one option would be to look at what version of MSVC we're trying to be compatible with to see if that's a version that supports `/std:c11` and only emit this diagnostic in that case, but tbh, that feels like it'll lead to confusing diagnostic behavior (esp given that we default to ms compatibility mode silently when you build Clang with MSVC on Windows). Given that MSVC does support `_Static_assert` when you enable C11 or later language mode, I'm inclined to warn on this construct by default. WDYT? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D95396/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D95396 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
