================ @@ -8,6 +8,25 @@ // RUN: -Wno-pointer-to-int-cast -Wmicrosoft -verify=ms-anonymous -fms-compatibility // RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple i686-windows %s -fsyntax-only -Wno-unused-value \ // RUN: -Wno-pointer-to-int-cast -Wmicrosoft -verify=ms-anonymous-dis +// Test that explicit -fno-ms-anonymous-structs does not enable the feature +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple i686-windows %s -fsyntax-only -Wno-unused-value \ +// RUN: -Wno-pointer-to-int-cast -Wmicrosoft -verify=ms-anonymous-dis \ +// RUN: -fno-ms-anonymous-structs +// Test that explicit -fno-ms-anonymous-structs overrides -fms-anonymous-structs +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple i686-windows %s -fsyntax-only -Wno-unused-value \ +// RUN: -Wno-pointer-to-int-cast -Wmicrosoft -verify=ms-anonymous-dis \ +// RUN: -fms-anonymous-structs -fno-ms-anonymous-structs +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple powerpc-ibm-aix %s -fsyntax-only -Wno-unused-value \ +// RUN: -Wno-pointer-to-int-cast -Wmicrosoft -verify=ms-anonymous-dis \ +// RUN: -fms-anonymous-structs -fno-ms-anonymous-structs +// Test that explicit -fno-ms-anonymous-structs overrides -fms-extensions ---------------- hubert-reinterpretcast wrote:
Does the property being tested (as described) actually hold? It is ambiguously worded as to whether the ordering matters. In particular, is the extension enabled with `-fno-ms-anonymous-structs -fms-extensions`? I think either answer is fine, but the comment should accurately describe the property that it tests. For example, by adding a parenthetical: ```suggestion // Test that explicit -fno-ms-anonymous-structs overrides earlier // -fms-extensions. ``` https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/176551 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
