(This relands 59337263ab and makes sure comma operator
diagnostics are suppressed in a SFINAE context.)
While at it, add the diagnosis message "left operand of comma operator has no effect" (used by GCC) for comma operator.
This also makes Clang diagnose in the constant evaluation context which aligns with GCC/MSVC behavior. (https://godbolt.org/z/7zxb8Tx96)
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103938
While at it, add the diagnosis message "left operand of comma operator has no effect" (used by GCC) for comma operator.
This also makes Clang diagnose in the constant evaluation context which aligns with GCC/MSVC behavior. (https://godbolt.org/z/7zxb8Tx96)
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103938
While at it, add the diagnosis message "left operand of comma operator has no effect" (used by GCC) for comma operator.
This also makes Clang diagnose in the constant evaluation context which aligns with GCC/MSVC behavior. (https://godbolt.org/z/7zxb8Tx96)
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103938
The syntax rules for ptr-operator allow attributes after *, &,
&&, therefore we should be able to parse the following:
void fn() {
void (*[[attr]] x)() = &fn;
void (&[[attr]] y)() = fn;
void (&&[[attr]] z)() = fn;
}
However the current logic in TryParsePtrOperatorSeq does not consider
the presence of attributes leading to unexpected parsing errors.
Moreover we should also consider _Atomic a possible qualifier that can
appear after the sequence of attribute specifiers.
Keep looking for decl-specifiers after an unknown identifier. Don't
issue diagnostics about an error type specifier conflicting with later
type specifiers.
llvm-svn: 360117
statement starts with an identifier for which name lookup will fail either way,
look at later tokens to disambiguate in order to improve error recovery.
llvm-svn: 162464
parser is looking at a declaration or an expression, use a '=' to
conclude that we are parsing a declaration.
This is wrong. However, our previous approach of finding a comma after
the '=' is also wrong, because the ',' could be part of a
template-argument-list. So, for now we're going to use the same wrong
heuristic as GCC and Visual C++, because less real-world code is
likely to be broken this way. I've opened PR7655 to keep track of our
wrongness; note also the XFAIL'd test.
Fixes <rdar://problem/8193163>.
llvm-svn: 108459
Yuanfang Chen