[PATCH] D66364: Diagnose use of _Thread_local as an extension when appropriate

[Aaron Ballman via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

aaron.ballman closed this revision.
aaron.ballman marked 2 inline comments as done.
aaron.ballman added a comment.

Committed in r369954



================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticParseKinds.td:130
+def ext_c11_feature : Extension<
   "%0 is a C11-specific feature">, InGroup<C11>;
 
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> Please consider rewording this to "%0 is a C11 extension" to match what we do for C++XY extensions. (This will also start looking a little silly once C20 adoption starts; features aren't C11-specific if they're also part of C20.)
> 
> As a separate change, though :)
Agreed, and will do this in a follow-up patch.


================
Comment at: clang/test/Sema/thread-specifier.c:127-160
+// expected-warning at 14 {{_Thread_local is a C11-specific feature}}
+// expected-warning at 15 {{_Thread_local is a C11-specific feature}}
+// expected-warning at 16 {{_Thread_local is a C11-specific feature}}
+// expected-warning at 22 {{_Thread_local is a C11-specific feature}}
+// expected-warning at 23 {{_Thread_local is a C11-specific feature}}
+// expected-warning at 31 {{_Thread_local is a C11-specific feature}}
+// expected-warning at 40 {{_Thread_local is a C11-specific feature}}
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> Hardcoding line numbers like this makes test maintenance painful. Using a different verify prefix seems like the easiest way to handle this:
> 
> ```
> // RUN: %clang_cc1 [...] -D__thread=_Thread_local -std=c++98 -verify=expected,thread-local
> [...]
> __thread int t1; // thread-local-warning {{_Thread_local is a C11-specific feature}}
> ```
Thank you for the suggestion, the results are *so* much cleaner than this original attempt!


Repository:
  rC Clang

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D66364/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D66364