================
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ struct __attribute__((internal_linkage)) S { //
expected-warning{{'internal_link
__attribute__((internal_linkage("foo"))) int g(void) {} //
expected-error{{'internal_linkage' attribute takes no arguments}}
int var6 [[clang::internal_linkage]];
-int var7 [[clang::internal_linkage]] __attribute__((common)); //
expected-error{{'clang::internal_linkage' and 'common' attributes are not
compatible}} \
+int var7 [[clang::internal_linkage]] __attribute__((common)); //
expected-error{{'common' and 'clang::internal_linkage' attributes are not
compatible}} \
----------------
hnrklssn wrote:
For context this is what the diagnostic looks like in the terminal:
```
internal_linkage.c:23:53: error: 'common' and 'clang::internal_linkage'
attributes are not compatible
23 | int var7 [[clang::internal_linkage]] __attribute__((common));
| ^
internal_linkage.c:23:12: note: conflicting attribute is here
23 | int var7 [[clang::internal_linkage]] __attribute__((common));
| ^
```
I think it makes sense to emit the error on the last occurring attribute, and I
also think it makes sense to mention the erroring attribute first in the
diagnostics message. This is also what this diagnostic _almost_ always did
already.
Would you prefer that the diagnostic was rephrased? Maybe something like
`attribute 'common' not compatible with attribute 'clang::internal_linkage'`?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/162714
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
