[cfe-commits] r65647 - in /cfe/trunk: include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.def lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp test/Parser/MicrosoftExtensions.c test/Parser/objc-forcollection-neg-2.m test/Parser/traditional_arg_scope.c test/Parser/typeof.c test/Sema/address_spaces.c test/Sema/block-literal.c test/Sema/implicit-int.c test/Sema/invalid-decl.c test/Sema/invalid-struct-init.c

[Douglas Gregor]

On Feb 27, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:

> Author: lattner
> Date: Fri Feb 27 12:53:28 2009
> New Revision: 65647
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=65647&view=rev
> Log:
> upgrade various 'implicit int' warnings from an ext-warn to warning  
> when not
> in C89 mode.  This makes it enabled by default instead of only  
> enabled with
> -pedantic.  Clang defaults to c99 mode, so people will see this more  
> often
> than with GCC, but they can always use -std=c89 if they really want  
> c89.
>
> Modified:
>    cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.def
>    cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp
>    cfe/trunk/test/Parser/MicrosoftExtensions.c
>    cfe/trunk/test/Parser/objc-forcollection-neg-2.m
>    cfe/trunk/test/Parser/traditional_arg_scope.c
>    cfe/trunk/test/Parser/typeof.c
>    cfe/trunk/test/Sema/address_spaces.c
>    cfe/trunk/test/Sema/block-literal.c
>    cfe/trunk/test/Sema/implicit-int.c
>    cfe/trunk/test/Sema/invalid-decl.c
>    cfe/trunk/test/Sema/invalid-struct-init.c
>
> Modified: cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp?rev=65647&r1=65646&r2=65647&view=diff
>
> = 
> = 
> = 
> = 
> = 
> = 
> = 
> = 
> ======================================================================
> --- cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp (original)
> +++ cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp Fri Feb 27 12:53:28 2009
> @@ -74,10 +74,10 @@
>     // parser already though by it pretending to have seen an 'int'  
> in this
>     // case.
>     if (getLangOptions().ImplicitInt) {
> -      if ((DS.getParsedSpecifiers() &  
> (DeclSpec::PQ_StorageClassSpecifier |
> -                                       DeclSpec::PQ_TypeSpecifier |
> -                                       DeclSpec::PQ_TypeQualifier))  
> == 0)
> -        Diag(DS.getSourceRange().getBegin(),  
> diag::ext_missing_declspec);
> +      // In C89 mode, we only warn if there is a completely missing  
> declspec
> +      // when one is not allowed.
> +      if (DS.isEmpty())
> +        Diag(DS.getSourceRange().getBegin(),  
> diag::warn_missing_declspec);
>     } else if (!DS.hasTypeSpecifier()) {
>       // C99 and C++ require a type specifier.  For example, C99  
> 6.7.2p2 says:
>       // "At least one type specifier shall be given in the  
> declaration
> @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@
>       // FIXME: Does Microsoft really have the implicit int  
> extension in C++?
>       unsigned DK = getLangOptions().CPlusPlus && !getLangOptions 
> ().Microsoft?
>           diag::err_missing_type_specifier
> -        : diag::ext_missing_type_specifier;
> +        : diag::warn_missing_type_specifier;
>       Diag(DS.getSourceRange().getBegin(), DK);
>     }

Code insertion hint?

	- Doug