On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Douglas Gregor <dgre...@apple.com> wrote:
>
> On May 18, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Eli Friedman wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Douglas Gregor <dgre...@apple.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> @@ -916,7 +916,13 @@
>>>> MergeAttributes(New, Old, Context);
>>>>
>>>> // Merge the types
>>>> - QualType MergedT = Context.mergeTypes(New->getType(),
>>>> Old->getType());
>>>> + QualType MergedT;
>>>> + if (getLangOptions().CPlusPlus) {
>>>> + if (Context.hasSameType(New->getType(), Old->getType()))
>>>> + MergedT = New->getType();
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + MergedT = Context.mergeTypes(New->getType(), Old->getType());
>>>> + }
>>>> if (MergedT.isNull()) {
>>>> Diag(New->getLocation(), diag::err_redefinition_different_type)
>>>> << New->getDeclName();
>>>
>>> This is slightly too strict in C++, because it's okay to redeclare a
>>> variable that has an incomplete type with a complete type (and vice
>>> versa).
>>> Here's a test case that used to work in C++ but doesn't now:
>>>
>>> extern int array[10];
>>> extern int array[];
>>> extern int array[10];
>>
>> Okay. I can fix it if you want; can you give me a citation for the rules?
>
> Well, that's interesting: I can't find any wording that makes this code
> legal, although both GCC and EDG accept it in their strict conformance
> modes.
Hmm, I just tried a bit of searching; [basic.link]p10 seems to allow
this: "the types specified by all declarations referring to a given
object or function shall be identical, except that declarations for an
array object can specify array types that differ by the presence or
absence of a major array bound". So I think a reasonable
implementation would be to allow merging an IncompleteArrayType with a
ConstantArrayType when the element types are the same.
-Eli
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
