zero9178 added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:9865 def ext_mixed_decls_code : Extension< "ISO C90 forbids mixing declarations and code">, + InGroup<DeclarationAfterStatement>; ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > In the other review, I left a comment about the diagnostic text: > https://reviews.llvm.org/D115094#3176985 > > Since we're cleaning this up, I think we should reword this diagnostic so it > follows newer conventions. I think the extension diagnostic should read: > `mixing declarations and code is a C99 extension` and the default ignore > warning should read `mixing declarations and code is incompatible with > standards before C99`. (This also helpfully removes the `ISO C90` wording, > which is confused about the name of the standard.) > > Typically, we'd put the default ignore warning under a new `CPre99Compat` > diagnostic group (spelled `pre-c99-compat`) as we do with other precompat > diagnostics, but the goal here is to match GCC's behavior and so the existing > warning group seems fine to me (I don't think we want warnings in multiple > groups, but that's possibly an option if it matters in the future). A `CPre99Compat` diagnostic group sounds like a good idea if more such warnings would be requested by users. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D114787/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D114787 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
