aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticParseKinds.td:875-876
"C++ standards before C++20">, InGroup<CXXPre20Compat>, DefaultIgnore;
+def err_anon_bitfield_member_init : Error<
+ "anonymous bit-field cannot have an in-class initializer">;
def err_incomplete_array_member_init: Error<
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> Please retain the diagnostic wording using proper standard terminology; the
> other diagnostics say "in-class initializer" because they predate the
> existence of the standard terminology and haven't been fixed yet. (Fixing
> them -- and renaming the corresponding functions throughout Clang -- would be
> great if you feel so inclined.)
Sounds good to me, and I can do the rest of the cleanup as an NFC commit once
this lands.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp:4127-4129
+ // Anonymous bit-fields cannot specify attributes; the attributes
+ // appertain to the type specifier for the bit-field instead. Provide a
+ // kinder parsing error than if we just let parsing happen organically.
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> I think this will regress our diagnostics for this (probably more common)
> case:
>
> ```
> struct X {
> int a, [[attr]] b;
> };
> ```
>
> Instead, how about we unconditionally `DiagnoseAndSkipCXX11Attributes()`
> before and after we parse GNU attributes in the `if (!FirstDeclarator)` check
> up above? (Aside: we should probably be better about handling mixed sequences
> of GNU and C++11 attributes in general.)
Good catch, I've made the changes. And I agree about attribute parsing order;
I'd really like to take another stab at fixing that if I get the chance.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D88333/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D88333
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
