serge-sans-paille marked an inline comment as done.
serge-sans-paille added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Sema/reserved-identifier.c:9
+int _foo() { return 0; } // expected-warning {{'_foo' is a reserved
identifier}}
+
+// This one is explicitly skipped by -Wreserved-identifier
----------------
Quuxplusone wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > Can you add a test that we do not warn on an extern declaration? e.g.,
> > ```
> > extern char *_strdup(const char *);
> > ```
> > This is sometimes used (esp in older C code bases) to avoid having to
> > include an entire header to scrape one declaration out of it, and there are
> > popular libraries (like the MSVC CRT) that have APIs starting with a single
> > underscore and lowercase letter.
> >
> > The idea here is: if it's an extern declaration, the identifier is "owned"
> > by some other declaration and this is not likely something the user has
> > control over.
> Should that logic also apply to a forward declaration like `struct _foo;`?
> Should it apply to `struct _foo { int i; };`? These are also things the user
> might not have control over. (And they're equally things that the user
> //could// pull out into a separate .h file surrounded by disabled-warning
> pragmas, if they really wanted to.)
I'd say 100% yeah to the forward declaration, but I'm unsure about the actual
definition, because there's no way to distinguish it from a user definition.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Sema/reserved-identifier.c:24
+ _Other, // expected-warning {{'_Other' is a reserved identifier}}
+ _other // no-warning
+};
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> I'm on the fence about whether this should have no warning or not.
> Enumeration constants in C (and sometimes in C++, depending on the
> enumeration) are in the enclosing scope. e.g.,
> ```
> enum foo {
> _bar
> };
>
> int i = _bar;
> ```
> So if a user has an enumeration constant named `_bar`, the implementation is
> not free to add `int _bar(void);` as it will cause compile errors. WDYT?
We could state it that way: would the code still compile if there's a `int
_bar` symbol defined in a system header. here the answer is no, so reserved.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D93095/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D93095
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
