efriedma added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:6451
+ "%1 is %select{|in}3complete">,
+ InGroup<C99Compat>;
def ext_typecheck_ordered_comparison_of_function_pointers : ExtWarn<
----------------
`InGroup<C11>`
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp:11571
+ Diag(Loc,
+ getLangOpts().C11
+ ? diag::ext_typecheck_compare_complete_incomplete_pointers
----------------
pestctrl wrote:
> efriedma wrote:
> > rsmith wrote:
> > > pestctrl wrote:
> > > > efriedma wrote:
> > > > > I think this condition is backwards? Should be `!getLangOpts().C11`.
> > > > > You want the warning with `-std=c99 -pedantic`, you don't want the
> > > > > warning with `std=c11 -pedantic`.
> > > > I don't think it's backwards. If getLangOpts().C11, then it is an
> > > > extension. Otherwise, it is the warning. I can switch the conditions if
> > > > it is confusing though.
> > > "Extension" means "this is invalid code that we're accepting anyway" --
> > > that's what this is in C99. In C11, I think we shouldn't be diagnosing at
> > > all.
> > >
> > > Has anyone checked whether WG14 removed this restriction in C11 as a DR
> > > resolution? If so, we shouldn't be diagnosing it at all, in any language
> > > mode.
> > I tracked down the proposal for the change; it's
> > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1439.pdf . Beyond the
> > reference to http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/dr_314.htm , I
> > can't find any relevant defect report.
> I have updated the diff to diagnose only for C99. Does the existence of the
> proposal mean we shouldn't be diagnosing in any language mode?
>
> Also, how did you track down the proposal that quickly? Even after skimming
> through it, I still can't find it through searching.
> Also, how did you track down the proposal that quickly?
It wasn't really that quick, but the thing that eventually worked was that I
googled for `site:open-std.org "At various points within a translation unit"`.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79945/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79945
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
