================
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify -std=c++11 %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify -std=c++14 %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify -std=c++17 %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify -std=c++20 %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify -std=c++23 %s
+
+// Test that 'auto' cannot be combined with a type specifier in C++.
+void f() {
+ auto int x = 1; // expected-error {{'auto' cannot be combined with a
type specifier}}
----------------
zygoloid wrote:
Can someone clarify why we would need new annotation or tentative parsing here?
It seems to me that we can handle `auto` incrementally while building the list
of decl specifiers without any novel lookahead, and I thought that's what we
already did. I would expect that we're just converting an extension warning to
an error here, and then doing some simplification if we can.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/166004
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
