hubert.reinterpretcast added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Sema/reserved-identifier.cpp:40
+ return foo__bar(); // no-warning
+}
----------------
serge-sans-paille wrote:
> 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.
@aaron.ballman, the "not reserved" comment re: `_X` for the literal operator
using the `operator string-literal identifier` form above seems suspect to me.
See `_Bq` example in [over.literal].
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
