nickdesaulniers added inline comments.
================ Comment at: test/Sema/gnu89.c:1-2 -// RUN: %clang_cc1 %s -std=gnu89 -pedantic -fsyntax-only -verify +// RUN: %clang_cc1 %s -std=gnu89 -pedantic -fsyntax-only 2>&1 | FileCheck -check-prefix=CHECK-PEDANTIC %s +// RUN: %clang_cc1 %s -std=gnu89 -fsyntax-only 2>&1 | FileCheck %s ---------------- nickdesaulniers wrote: > lebedev.ri wrote: > > This ideally needs positive tests. E.g.: > > * `-std=c89` > > * `-std=c89 -pedantic` > > * `-std=gnu99` > > * `-std=gnu99 -pedantic` > > * `-std=c99` > > * `-std=c99 -pedantic` > > > Since `typeof` is a gnu extension, its use constitutes an error for all non > gnu C standards, so it's moot to check for duplicate const specifiers from > typeof exprs. > > Since we're trying to match GCC's behavior here, GCC does not warn for > `-std=gnu99` or `-std=gnu99 -pedantic` so I will add those test cases. https://godbolt.org/z/3trZdl Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D52248 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
