bader added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:2157 if (getDiagnostics().getSuppressSystemWarnings() && - (Context.getSourceManager().isInSystemHeader(Old->getLocation()) || + // Some standard types are defined implicitly in Clang (e.g. OpenCL). + (Old->isImplicit() || New->isImplicit() || ---------------- Anastasia wrote: > Anastasia wrote: > > ahatanak wrote: > > > Is it necessary to check whether New is implicit? I was just wondering > > > when or how an implicit definition would redefine a typedef. > > I had a thought on it too, and I am not sure actually. This can happen if > > we implicitly define something from the standard headers. But I believe the > > Sema initialization should always happen before parsing the standard header > > or even loading them from the PCH. So I guess this shouldn't ever happen > > really? Perhaps, I should just remove this? > Actually in case of implicit typedefs we don't seem to follow this program > path at all. So I am removing this. So something like this will also work? ``` typedef float float4 __attribute((ext_vector_type(4))); typedef float4 atomic_int; ``` ================ Comment at: test/SemaOpenCL/types.cl:6 +// Check redefinition of standard types +typedef atomic_int atomic_flag; ---------------- Can we check that -Wtypedef-redefinition will emit a warning for this expression? This typedef seems to be unnecessary since clang implicitly defines atomic_flag for OpenCL. User is not supposed to re-define it, so warning would be helpful here. https://reviews.llvm.org/D31397 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
