to268 added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Sema/c2x-auto.c:119
+ return x;
+}
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > Some additional test cases to consider:
> > ```
> > _Complex auto i = 12.0; // Should be rejected because _Complex is a type
> > specifier; however,
> > // when auto becomes a type specifier, this should
> > be accepted. GCC
> > // rejects but if we end up accepting, I won't be
> > sad -- we'll need an
> > // extension warning in that case though.
> >
> > void foo(void) {
> > extern void foo(int a, int array[({ auto x = 12; x;})]); // This is a use
> > of `auto` within function prototype
> > // scope, but
> > should still be accepted.
> > }
> > ```
> The suggested comment I have isn't fully correct. It should be rejected
> because _Complex is a type specifier, but when auto becomes a type specifier,
> I think _Complex perhaps should still not deduce. Consider this analogous
> case (which could be a fun test case as well):
> ```
> signed auto a = 1L;
> ```
> `signed` is a type specifier as well, and this is not accepted in C++ (so we
> don't want to accept it in C either).
> ```
> void foo(void) {
> extern void foo(int a, int array[({ auto x = 12; x;})]); // This is a use
> of `auto` within function prototype
> // scope, but
> should still be accepted.
> }
> ```
I think you made a mistake there by using the same function name as the outer
one.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D133289/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D133289
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
