rsmith added a comment. In D57086#1546386 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D57086#1546386>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D57086#1535873 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D57086#1535873>, @domdom wrote: > > > Something I should ask, it seems like GCC only ignores the NullStmts at the > > end if it's in C mode. Should clang match this behaviour exactly? > > > I can't think of a reason that this should only happen in C mode, can you > @rsmith? No, I can't think of such a reason either. When we've seen such weirdnesses before (eg, `break` or `continue` in a statement expression in a `for` loop increment expression) we generally try to pick a behavior that's consistent across languages, and warn on the cases where we give a different behavior from GCC as a result. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D57086/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D57086 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
