[cfe-dev] [cfe-commits] r62192 - in /cfe/trunk: include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticKinds.def lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp

[Chris Lattner]

On Jan 13, 2009, at 3:10 PM, Douglas Gregor wrote:
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=62192&view=rev
> Log:
> Permitting typedefs without a name is a Microsoft/GNU extension

Hey Doug,

> +++ cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticKinds.def Tue Jan 13  
> 17:10:51 2009
> @@ -593,6 +593,8 @@
>      "expected unqualified-id")
> DIAG(err_no_declarators, ERROR,
>      "declaration does not declare anything")
> +DIAG(ext_no_declarators, EXTENSION,
> +     "typedef without a name is a Microsoft extension")

Should this be an EXTWARN so that it warns by default?

> +  // Permit typedefs without declarators as a Microsoft extension.
>   if (!DS.isMissingDeclaratorOk()) {
> +    if (getLangOptions().Microsoft &&
> +        DS.getStorageClassSpec() == DeclSpec::SCS_typedef) {
> +      Diag(DS.getSourceRange().getBegin(), diag::ext_no_declarators)
> +        << DS.getSourceRange();
> +      return Tag;
> +    }

This touches on meta-design issues, but do you think it is better to  
test for getLangOptions.MS here, or do you think it is better to have  
the Clang driver map this onto ERROR by default when not is ms  
extensions mode?  Both approaches work, but they have different  
tradeoffs.  I'm curious what you (and others!) think.

-Chris