serge-sans-paille marked an inline comment as done.
serge-sans-paille added a comment.
@rsmith I did my bet to address your comments. What do you think of current
state?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:13640
+ warnOnReservedIdentifier(New);
+
----------------
serge-sans-paille wrote:
> rsmith wrote:
> > Is there somewhere more central you can do this, rather than repeating it
> > once for each kind of declaration? (Eg, `PushOnScopeChains`)
> That would be sane. I'll check that.
I tried PushOnScopeChains, and this does not capture all the required
declarations. I failed to find another place :-/
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:16296
} else {
+ if (TUK == TUK_Definition)
+ warnOnReservedIdentifier(New);
----------------
serge-sans-paille wrote:
> rsmith wrote:
> > Why do we not diagnose the other possible `TagUseKind`s? `struct _foo;` and
> > `struct _foo *p;` both use reserved identifiers too.
> We have a test case for `struct _foo` and its correctly diagnosed. I'll
> double check for pointer / reference too.
Test case added for pointers, works like a charm.
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
