nickdesaulniers added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/Sema/address_spaces.c:12
{
- _AS2 *x;// expected-warning {{type specifier missing, defaults to 'int'}}
+ _AS2 *x;// expected-error {{use of undeclared identifier 'x'}}
_AS1 float * _AS2 *B;
----------------
efriedma wrote:
> xbolva00 wrote:
> > I think this is an acceptable change..
> This is scary. gcc and clang both parse `void f() { __attribute((aligned))
> *x; }` etc. as a declaration; I don't think we want to change that, even if
> that usage is a bit dubious in modern C. And it's not clear to me if there
> are other implications here; does this affect the handling of
> statement/declaration ambiguity in C++?
It's a pointer to implicit int. Either way, I think the change and the
comments are polluting this code review, hence the suggestion to submit as a
separate individual patch.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D63260/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D63260
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
