thakis marked 2 inline comments as done. thakis added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp:3892-3893 /// +/// Note that a struct declaration refers to a declaration in a struct, +/// not to the declaration of a struct. +/// ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > Seems to be unrelated to this patch? Feel free to commit separately. It's somewhat related in that ParseStructDeclaration() is called a few lines below where I'm adding the comment talking about ParseStructUnionBody() ================ Comment at: clang/test/Parser/objc-static-assert.mm:1 +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify -Wno-objc-root-class %s + ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > Can you try explicitly specifying C++98 as the underlying language standard > mode? I feel like `_Static_assert()` will continue to work there (because we > made it a language extension in all modes) but `static_assert()` may fail > (because that's gated on C++11 support). If that turns out to be the case, > then I think `objc_static_assert` should be more complex than expanding to > `true`, or we should talk about supporting `static_assert()` in all C++ > language modes like we do for `_Static_assert()`. Correct, with -std=c++98 static_assert isn't available but _Static_assert still is. If you want, I can add a test for this, but this is covered by regular c++ tests already. I think the has_feature() should stay as-is though: Else you have no way to know if _Static_assert works in obj-c mode, and you can check if static_assert works by checkout has_feature && __cplusplus >= 201103L if you still care about c++98. (And adding one feature each for static_assert and _Static_assert seems like overkill.) CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D59223/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D59223 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
