================
@@ -92,3 +92,43 @@ extern __attribute__((address_space(0))) int
type_attr_test_2; // expec
void invalid_param_fn(__attribute__((address_space(1))) int i); //
expected-error {{parameter may not be qualified with an address space}}
typeof(invalid_param_fn) invalid_param_1;
typeof_unqual(invalid_param_fn) invalid_param_2;
+
+// Ensure restrict is stripped
+extern int *restrict p1;
+extern int *p2;
+extern typeof(p1) p1;
+extern typeof_unqual(p1) p2;
+
+// Ensure array qualifications are removed
+extern const int aci[2];
+extern const int acii[2][2];
+extern int ai[2];
+extern int aii[2][2];
+extern typeof(aci) aci;
+extern typeof_unqual(aci) ai;
+extern typeof(acii) acii;
+extern typeof_unqual(acii) aii;
----------------
AaronBallman wrote:
Curiously, this is different from the results in GCC:
https://godbolt.org/z/5rczxdGKn
Based on my understanding of "An array and its element type are always
considered to be identically qualified.", I think GCC's behavior is incorrect,
but it would be good to file an issue with them to let them know to ensure we
agree.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92767
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
