[cfe-commits] [Patch] Fix for PR2709

[Douglas Gregor]

On Nov 15, 2011, at 8:45 AM, Erik Verbruggen wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Attached is a patch for PR2709. It is against trunk rev #144646. Two questions:
> - are there more cases to cover than the one in the PR

There are @protocols and @implementations to consider.

> - should I add the warning to the Misc/warning-flags.c test, or should I add it to a group (and if so, which one, because there are more warnings of the same kind which are not in a group)...?


We're moving toward having all warnings in groups. Please put the warning in a group.

@@ -145,7 +145,11 @@ Decl *Parser::ParseObjCAtInterfaceDeclaration(SourceLocation atLoc,
                                               ParsedAttributes &attrs) {
   assert(Tok.isObjCAtKeyword(tok::objc_interface) &&
          "ParseObjCAtInterfaceDeclaration(): Expected @interface");
-  ConsumeToken(); // the "interface" identifier
+  const IdentifierInfo *IFaceII = Tok.getIdentifierInfo();
+  const SourceLocation IFaceTok = ConsumeToken(); // the "interface" identifier
+  if (Actions.CurContext->isObjCContainer())
+      Diag(IFaceTok, diag::warn_objc_nested_container_decl)
+              << IFaceII->getName();

Two comments: (1) the parser shouldn't be poking at Actions.CurContext. Most likely, this check should move into Sema. (2) it seems like the most common case of having an @interface/@implementation/@protocol nested inside another one is actually a missing @end; it's probably best to provide that as a Fix-It and pretend as if the @end were there.

	- Doug