declarator is incorrect. Not being a typename causes the parser to
dive down into the K&R identifier list handling stuff, which is almost
never the right thing to do.
Before:
r.c:3:17: error: expected ')'
void bar(intptr y);
^
r.c:3:9: note: to match this '('
void bar(intptr y);
^
r.c:3:10: error: a parameter list without types is only allowed in a function definition
void bar(intptr y);
^
After:
r.c:3:10: error: unknown type name 'intptr'; did you mean 'intptr_t'?
void bar(intptr y);
^~~~~~
intptr_t
r.c:1:13: note: 'intptr_t' declared here
typedef int intptr_t;
^
This fixes rdar://7980651 - poor recovery for bad type in the first arg of a C function
llvm-svn: 103783
- This is designed to make it obvious that %clang_cc1 is a "test variable"
which is substituted. It is '%clang_cc1' instead of '%clang -cc1' because it
can be useful to redefine what gets run as 'clang -cc1' (for example, to set
a default target).
llvm-svn: 91446
scheme to be more useful.
The new scheme introduces a set of categories that should be more
readable, and also reflects what we want to consider as an extension
more accurately. Specifically, it makes the "what is a keyword"
determination accurately reflect whether the keyword is a GNU or
Microsoft extension.
I also introduced separate flags for keyword aliases; this is useful
because the classification of the aliases is mostly unrelated to the
classification of the original keyword.
This patch treats anything that's in the implementation
namespace (prefixed with "__", or "_X" where "X" is any upper-case
letter) as a keyword without marking it as an extension. This is
consistent with the standards in that an implementation is allowed to define
arbitrary extensions in the implementation namespace without violating
the standard. This gets rid of all the nasty "extension used" warnings
for stuff like __attribute__ in -pedantic mode. We still warn for
extensions outside of the the implementation namespace, like typeof.
If someone wants to implement -Wextensions or something like that, we
could add additional information to the keyword table.
This also removes processing for the unused "Boolean" language option;
such an extension isn't supported on any other C implementation, so I
don't see any point to adding it.
The changes to test/CodeGen/inline.c are required because previously, we
weren't actually disabling the "inline" keyword in -std=c89 mode.
I'll remove Boolean and NoExtensions from LangOptions in a follow-up
commit.
llvm-svn: 70281
know how to recover from an error, we can attach a hint to the
diagnostic that states how to modify the code, which can be one of:
- Insert some new code (a text string) at a particular source
location
- Remove the code within a given range
- Replace the code within a given range with some new code (a text
string)
Right now, we use these hints to annotate diagnostic information. For
example, if one uses the '>>' in a template argument in C++98, as in
this code:
template<int I> class B { };
B<1000 >> 2> *b1;
we'll warn that the behavior will change in C++0x. The fix is to
insert parenthese, so we use code insertion annotations to illustrate
where the parentheses go:
test.cpp:10:10: warning: use of right-shift operator ('>>') in template
argument will require parentheses in C++0x
B<1000 >> 2> *b1;
^
( )
Use of these annotations is partially implemented for HTML
diagnostics, but it's not (yet) producing valid HTML, which may be
related to PR2386, so it has been #if 0'd out.
In this future, we could consider hooking this mechanism up to the
rewriter to actually try to fix these problems during compilation (or,
after a compilation whose only errors have fixes). For now, however, I
suggest that we use these code modification hints whenever we can, so
that we get better diagnostics now and will have better coverage when
we find better ways to use this information.
This also fixes PR3410 by placing the complaint about missing tokens
just after the previous token (rather than at the location of the next
token).
llvm-svn: 65570
new DiagnoseIncompleteType. It provides additional information about
struct/class/union/enum types when possible, either by pointing to the
forward declaration of that type or by pointing to the definition (if
we're in the process of defining that type).
Fixes <rdar://problem/6500531>.
llvm-svn: 62521
John McCall