xgupta added subscribers: zero9178, xgupta. xgupta added a comment. In D115094#3174635 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D115094#3174635>, @dblaikie wrote:
> This'll at least need a test case added - though the specifics of how the > warning should work I'll leave up to @aaron.ballman - unless he wants some > second opinions. (I don't immediately have a strong feeling either way > regarding the current or proposed behavior) In D115094#3176985 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D115094#3176985>, @aaron.ballman wrote: > I'm not opposed to the idea of issuing this diagnostic when it's explicitly > enabled, but the changes aren't quite correct. `ext_mixed_decls_code` is > defined as an `Extension` in DiagnosticSemaKinds.td, which means that these > changes will cause us to issue a pedantic diagnostic in C99 and later mode > now. We should not be issuing this as an extension warning in those modes. > > The usual approach we have for this sort of thing is to issue two warnings: > > - "blah is a C99 extension" (issued as an extension warning when compiling in > a mode earlier than C99) > - "blah is incompatible with standards before C99" (issued when explicitly > opting into compatibility warnings) > > e.g., > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td#L575 > and > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td#L572 > > Also, as @dblaikie points out, the changes are missing test coverage. There is already a revision uploaded for this: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114787 by @zero9178. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D115094/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D115094 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
