================
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify=expected,cxx11 -pedantic -std=c++11 %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify=expected,cxx14 -pedantic -std=c++14 %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify=expected,cxx17 -pedantic -std=c++17 %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify=expected,cxx20 -pedantic -std=c++20 %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify=expected,cxx23 -pedantic -std=c++23 %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify=expected,cxx26 -pedantic -std=c++26 %s
+
+#define noreturn 1 // cxx11-warning {{keyword is hidden by macro
definition}}
----------------
zygoloid wrote:
It looks like we're producing an `Extension` diagnostic here. That means we'll
reject under `-pedantic-errors`, which doesn't seem correct, given that I think
this entire source file is valid C++ -- I think the "that includes a standard
library header" in [macro.names] is intended to cover both /1 and /2, so source
files that *don't* include standard library headers are allowed to define these
names as macros. (In general, the library wording doesn't get to add core
language "shall not" rules, so it wouldn't make any sense for a rule globally
disallowing defines of keywords to be there.)
Maybe this diagnostic should be a normal warning not an extension?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/106036
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
