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

Reply via email to