AaronBallman 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.
I decided it's worth it to warn about cv-qualifiers (we don't have to worry about `restrict` as that applies to pointers) and to default to an error for `_Atomic`. 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
