bader added inline comments.
================ Comment at: test/Sema/address_spaces.c:17 int *_AS1 _AS2 *Z; // expected-error {{multiple address spaces specified for type}} + int *_AS1 _AS1 *M; ---------------- ebevhan wrote: > Anastasia wrote: > > ebevhan wrote: > > > bader wrote: > > > > I think it might be valuable to give a warning or remark to user. > > > > Using the same address space qualifier multiple times is not something > > > > OpenCL C developers are supposed to do. > > > > > > > The test is obviously a bit contrived, but it could happen by mistake, or > > > as a result of some typedef or macro combination. It also cannot go > > > wrong, so there's no harm in it happening. > > > > > > I see your point, though. A warning feels like a bit much, so I'm not > > > sure what else to use. A note? > > Just checked for const qualifier we get a warning: > > warning: duplicate 'const' declaration specifier > > [-Wduplicate-decl-specifier] > > > > We could do the same... not sure if we could try to share the diagnostic as > > well. > I have a patch ready that adds a warning in the same warning group and uses > that. I'm not sure about reusing the other one since address spaces don't > have to be declaration specifiers. > > The warning is 'multiple identical address spaces specified for type', > similar to the error. Is that acceptable? Sounds good to me. Could you share your patch, please? Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D47630 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits