rjmccall added a comment. In D65286#1606441 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D65286#1606441>, @Anastasia wrote:
> In D65286#1606071 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D65286#1606071>, @mantognini > wrote: > > > In `vector_literals_nested.cl`, we have tests for (global) constants. Do > > you think it would be worth testing those as well in C++ mode? Maybe the > > two files (`vector_literals_nested.cl` and `vector_literals_valid.cl`) > > should also be merged as most of their content seems duplicated. > > > Thanks for pointing out. Indeed there was lots of repetition. I only added > one missing test case (line 37 of `vector_literals_valid.cl`) and also > removed another similar file `test/SemaOpenCL/vector_literals_const.cl`. > > > In C++, we have the comma operator and therefore the AST is significantly > > different. Running the content of your test file with `-x c++` shows that > > it is rejected as desired. It could be worth having a negative test to > > ensure we always reject this in vanilla C++. > > Added test case in `test/SemaCXX/vector.cpp`. However I am now confused what > syntax we shouldn't accept exactly. @rjmccall do you think there should be > an error on line 341? No, it's correct that this is accepted as a vector splat. The warning is good, although it would be even better if we could find a way to warn about this more specifically, like "warning: this syntax does not construct a vector; initial elements are ignored" (needs workshopping, obviously). CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D65286/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D65286 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
