================
@@ -2379,6 +2382,11 @@ StmtResult Parser::ParseForStatement(SourceLocation
*TrailingElseLoc,
return StmtError();
}
+ // attribute-specifier without attribute (`[[]]`) isn't in AST.
+ // `__declspec()` is only applied to declarations, so we can ignore it.
+ if (!isa<CompoundStmt>(Body.get()) || BodyStartsWithAttr)
----------------
AaronBallman wrote:
Whelp, I think this logic is correct but I really don't agree with the design
in the standard and think there's another extension hiding in here:
```
int main() {
template for (int x : {1}) [[clang::atomic(remote_memory)]] {}
}
```
That's invalid per the standard because the standard requires a
compound-statement and that grammar production cannot have a leading attribute.
If WG21 used statement instead, then a leading attribute would be accepted as
you'd expect.
I think the diagnostic text will be confusing in that situation because there
*is* a compound statement. That suggests we want to handle attributes with
their own diagnostic, but that would mean we'd need to get much better about
recognizing attributes instead of looking for a single token.
Ideally, we'd have a `CompoundStmt` or an `AttributedStmt` which wraps a
`CompoundStmt`, but there are two scenarios I think that won't cover:
```
template for (int x : {1}) [[]] { } // Empty attributes don't make an
AttributedStmt
template for (int x : {1}) [[unknown]] {} // Unknown attributes don't make an
AttributedStmt either
```
Other test cases to consider would be Objective-C++ or lambdas in C++, so it's
not just attributes:
```
template for (int x : {1}) [obj msg];
template for (int x : {1}) [](){}();
```
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/209229
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
