aaron.ballman added a comment. In D125919#3560523 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D125919#3560523>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> All that said, I think you can see why I'm hoping to get an answer from WG14 > as to what to do. Reasonable folks are disagreeing on what the standard > requires here. The discussion on the WG14 reflector seems to be settling down to a consensus position that the `_Atomic` qualifier is only syntactically a qualifier and its use designates an entirely new type. When the standard says "unqualified type", the `_Atomic` is not considered a qualification. So we should *not* be stripping the `_Atomic` as I was doing in this patch. (SC22WG14.22200 has most of the details spelled out nicely, if you have access to the reflectors.) I had asked other questions in related areas that also got answers. `const void func(volatile void);` -- the return type is adjusted to `void`; the parameter type is UB (by lack of specification) and we can do what we want here. We currently diagnose the parameter as being invalid: https://godbolt.org/z/9c8bTrerY. Our behavior with the parameter is consistent with GCC and EDG. `const int main(void)` -- this is valid and equivalent to `int main(void)`, so it should be accepted; we currently reject: https://godbolt.org/z/v43h596ev `const int func(void); int func(void) { }` -- this is DR423. It is valid, the composite type is `int(void)`; we give a conflicting types error: https://godbolt.org/z/Yb841r7Ex Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D125919/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D125919 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
