nickdesaulniers marked an inline comment as done.
nickdesaulniers added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/FixIt/fixit.c:50
-// CHECK: const typedef int int_t;
-const typedef typedef int int_t; // expected-warning {{duplicate 'typedef'}}
-
----------------
nickdesaulniers wrote:
> Ah, this was a case I should add one last test for. I think reviewers can
> still start reviewing the rest. This should just add one additional test
> case.
Added test case back.
================
Comment at: test/Parser/atomic.c:5
typedef _Atomic int atomic_int;
-typedef _Atomic _Atomic _Atomic(int) atomic_int; // expected-warning
{{duplicate '_Atomic' declaration specifier}}
----------------
nickdesaulniers wrote:
> Note to reviewers: this deletion was intentional. It is not copied over to
> the new test file test/Sema/dupl-declspec.c because we now DONT want to warn
> for duplicates in C99+, and `_Atomic` was not available before C11.
Actually, we can still test that it does not appear.
================
Comment at: test/Sema/declspec.c:43
-volatile volatile int pr8264_2; // expected-warning {{duplicate 'volatile'
declaration specifier}}
-char * restrict restrict pr8264_3; // expected-warning {{duplicate 'restrict'
declaration specifier}}
-
----------------
nickdesaulniers wrote:
> Note to reviewers; this deletion was intentional. It is not copied over to
> the new test file test/Sema/dupl-declspec.c with the rest of the PR8264 cases
> because we now DONT want to warn for duplicates in C99+, and `restrict` was
> not available before then (ie. C90).
>
> The rest of these cases were moved to the new test file
> test/Sema/dupl-declspec.c and exhaustively tested against all current C
> standards.
Actually, we can still test that it does not appear.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D52248
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
