serge-sans-paille marked 2 inline comments as done.
serge-sans-paille added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Sema/reserved-identifier.cpp:58
+// we skip this one because it's not at top-level.
+int _barbatruc; // no-warning
+}
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> This is another case that I'm on the fence about failing to warn on because
> the name `_barbatruc` would conflict with a name introduced by the
> implementation. Another interesting variant of the same problem, for C++:
> ```
> static union {
> int _field;
> };
> ```
> I wonder if the rule should not be whether the declaration is at file scope
> or not, but whether the declared identifier can be found at file scope or not?
> whether the declared identifier can be found at file scope or not?
100% agree. As
```
static union {
int _field;
};
int _field;
```
is invalid, I considered that one and tested it.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Sema/reserved-identifier.cpp:40
+ return foo__bar(); // no-warning
+}
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > You should also have some tests for:
> > ```
> > template <typename T>
> > void _Foobar(); // Even though it's not instantiated, it's still reserved.
> >
> > template <typename _Ty> // Reserved
> > void whatever();
> >
> > void func() {
> > int array[10];
> > for (auto _A : array) // Reserved
> > ;
> > }
> >
> > class _C { // Reserved
> > public:
> > _C(); // Not reserved
> > };
> >
> > unsigned operator "" huttah(unsigned long long); // Reserved
> > (http://eel.is/c++draft/usrlit.suffix#1)
> >
> > unsigned operator "" _W(unsigned long long); // Reserved
> > unsigned operator "" _w(unsigned long long); // Reserved
> >
> > static unsigned operator "" _X(unsigned long long); // Not reserved
> > static unsigned operator "" _x(unsigned long long); // Not reserved
> > ```
> I think some of these tests are still missing. I'm especially worried about
> the user-defined literal cases being diagnosed, as we'd be warning to not do
> the exact thing users are expected to do.
User defined literal tested below and behave as expected.
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
