Anastasia added a comment. It seems that this bit is accepted under -std=c99 and the warning is given with the -pedantic flag. I am not sure whether it adds much deviating the implementation from C here. The OpenCL spec doesn't seem to contain anything on this matter? But if we decide to be more strict, could we try to keep it consistent with the C implementation (perhaps we could give the same diagnostic as C does as an error instead or a warning).
Also this bit gives different error in C: int a; void *p = &&a; error: use of undeclared label 'a' It doesn't seem like any of the errors for that code is more logical or precise. But if I would have to pick among equivalent approaches I would go for keeping it coherent with C. https://reviews.llvm.org/D26735 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
