================
@@ -1881,15 +1881,53 @@ Sema::ConditionResult
Parser::ParseCXXCondition(StmtResult *InitStmt,
}
ParsedAttributes attrs(AttrFactory);
- MaybeParseCXX11Attributes(attrs);
+ bool ParsedAttrs = MaybeParseCXX11Attributes(attrs);
const auto WarnOnInit = [this, &CK] {
- Diag(Tok.getLocation(), getLangOpts().CPlusPlus17
- ? diag::warn_cxx14_compat_init_statement
- : diag::ext_init_statement)
- << (CK == Sema::ConditionKind::Switch);
+ if (getLangOpts().CPlusPlus)
+ Diag(Tok.getLocation(), getLangOpts().CPlusPlus17
+ ? diag::warn_cxx14_compat_init_statement
+ : diag::ext_init_statement)
+ << (CK == Sema::ConditionKind::Switch);
+ else
+ Diag(Tok.getLocation(), getLangOpts().C2y
+ ? diag::warn_c2y_compat_decl_statement
+ : diag::ext_c2y_decl_statement)
+ << (CK == Sema::ConditionKind::Switch);
};
+ if (!getLangOpts().CPlusPlus) {
+ if (isDeclarationStatement() && !isCXXSimpleDeclaration(false)) {
----------------
AaronBallman wrote:
I actually wonder if we should add `isIfDeclarationStatement()` (or similar)
kind of like how we have `isForInitDeclaration()`? I would expect we would not
need the `Tok.is(tok::semi)` block below because this one should be able to
cover both scenarios.
I actually worry the attribute parsing happening here will be problematic; my
expectation was that we'd be letting `ParseDeclaration` do all the heavy
lifting for us, so that we'd get the right behavior for things like
`__extension__` but that should also handle attribute parsing. And tentative
parsing does consider attributes, so I'm a bit worried about us parsing them
and then checking `isDeclarationStatement()` or similar because those may be
using the attribute tokens to quickly determine something is or is not a
declaration.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/198244
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
