erichkeane wrote: > > > avior due to the silent stripping. Given that an atomic type is not the > > > same as its underlying type (in terms of ABI or semantics) I think we > > > should diagnose the behavior with at least a warning. I could even be > > > convinced it should be a warning which defaults to an error because this > > > is just weird. > > > > > > Yeah, I 100% agree with that. Warn-as-error is reasonable here IMO (as are > > ANY qualifiers?, but more so for atomic) > > Would you like me to diagnose any qualifier? And turn it into > warning-as-error?
I thought about this more... I think a warning for 'qualifier ignored' for 'normal' qualifier is sensible, but not as error. I can make a pretty strong case (as you did above) for the _Atomic who-what-zit to be a default warning-as- error. As far as what I want... feel free to land as-is, or if you feel motivated, do the rest. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/147802 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
