[PATCH] D93095: Introduce -Wreserved-identifier

[Hubert Tong via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

hubert.reinterpretcast added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/test/Sema/reserved-identifier.cpp:40
+  return foo__bar(); // no-warning
+}
----------------
serge-sans-paille wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > You should also have some tests for:
> > > ```
> > > template <typename T>
> > > void _Foobar(); // Even though it's not instantiated, it's still reserved.
> > > 
> > > template <typename _Ty> // Reserved
> > > void whatever();
> > > 
> > > void func() {
> > >   int array[10];
> > >   for (auto _A : array) // Reserved
> > >     ;
> > > }
> > > 
> > > class _C { // Reserved
> > > public:
> > >   _C(); // Not reserved
> > > };
> > > 
> > > unsigned operator "" huttah(unsigned long long); // Reserved (http://eel.is/c++draft/usrlit.suffix#1)
> > > 
> > > unsigned operator "" _W(unsigned long long); // Reserved
> > > unsigned operator "" _w(unsigned long long); // Reserved
> > > 
> > > static unsigned operator "" _X(unsigned long long); // Not reserved
> > > static unsigned operator "" _x(unsigned long long); // Not reserved
> > > ```
> > I think some of these tests are still missing. I'm especially worried about the user-defined literal cases being diagnosed, as we'd be warning to not do the exact thing users are expected to do.
> User defined literal tested below and behave as expected.
@aaron.ballman, the "not reserved" comment re: `_X` for the literal operator using the `operator string-literal identifier` form above seems suspect to me. See `_Bq` example in [over.literal].


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D93095/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D93095