[PATCH] D133574: [C2x] reject type definitions in offsetof

[YingChi Long via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

inclyc added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Parse/Parser.h:2311
     case DeclSpecContext::DSC_association:
+    case DeclSpecContext::DSC_offsetof:
       return true;
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Is this correct? I don't think we can deduce the type from `offsetof` through CTAD, can we?
> 
> https://godbolt.org/z/Kab6ahYe7
> 
> (This might be a good test case to add assuming we don't already have that coverage.)
Emm, these checks just return as the same as "type_specifier". Because that's what we passed into "ParsingTypename" before.


================
Comment at: clang/test/Sema/offsetof.c:79
+    int a;
+    struct B // no-error, struct B is not defined within __builtin_offsetof directly
+    {
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> I think this is defensible. The wording in the standard is "If the specified type defines a new type or if the specified member is a bit-field, the behavior is undefined." and the specified type in this case is `struct A`; that `struct A` happens to also define `struct B` is immaterial.
> 
> However, the intent behind the change to the rule is to support older implementations of `offsetof` to protect them from having to deal with a case like: `offsetof(struct S { int a, b }, b);` where `offsetof` is a macro and thus the comma between `a` and `b` is treated as a separator. So there's a part of me that wonders if we want to also support diagnosing this case. But then we'd have to look at the declarator context more recursively to see whether any of the contexts on the stack are an `offsetof` context and that might be tricky.
> 
> Thoughts?
FWIW, gcc seems just rejects all definitions in this context. (Perhaps during Parsing the statements). If we add a bool state to the Parser (just using RAII object as before) struct B will trigger diagnostic error because the state "ParsingOffsetof" is passed into inner declaration.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D133574/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D133574