If the declaration of an identifier has block scope, and the identifier has
external or internal linkage, the declaration shall have no initializer for
the identifier.
Clang now gives a more suitable diagnosis for this case.
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/57478
Signed-off-by: Jun Zhang <jun@junz.org>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D133088
A significant number of our tests in C accidentally use functions
without prototypes. This patch converts the function signatures to have
a prototype for the situations where the test is not specific to K&R C
declarations. e.g.,
void func();
becomes
void func(void);
This is the second batch of tests being updated (there are a significant
number of other tests left to be updated).
In the following:
void f(int x) { extern int x; }
The second declaration of 'x' shouldn't be considered a redeclaration of
the parameter.
llvm-svn: 225780
CL permits static redeclarations to follow extern declarations. The
storage specifier on the latter declaration has no effect.
This fixes PR20034.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4149
llvm-svn: 211238
caching the linkage for a declaration before we set up its redeclaration chain,
when determining whether a declaration could be a redeclaration of something
from an unimported submodule. We actually want to look at the declaration as if
it were not a redeclaration here, so compute the linkage but don't cache it.
llvm-svn: 178733
specifier is unsed in a declaration; as it may not make the symbol
local to linkage unit as intended. Suggest using "hidden" visibility
attribute instead. // rdar://7703982
llvm-svn: 162138
- This is designed to make it obvious that %clang_cc1 is a "test variable"
which is substituted. It is '%clang_cc1' instead of '%clang -cc1' because it
can be useful to redefine what gets run as 'clang -cc1' (for example, to set
a default target).
llvm-svn: 91446
- Exposed quite a few Sema issues and a CodeGen crash.
- See FIXMEs in test case, and in SemaDecl.cpp (PR3983).
I'm skeptical that __private_extern__ should actually be a storage
class value. I think that __private_extern__ basically amounts to
extern A __attribute__((visibility("hidden")))
and would be better off handled (a) as that, or (b) with an extra bit
in the VarDecl.
llvm-svn: 69020
Jun Zhang