Fix handling of implicit int, resolving PR2012 and reverting (and
subsuming) my patch for PR1999.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@49251 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
diff --git a/lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp b/lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp
index 7d15e98..9b8ecf8 100644
--- a/lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp
+++ b/lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp
@@ -1340,7 +1340,6 @@
ParmDecl.AddAttributes(ParseAttributes());
// Verify C99 6.7.5.3p2: The only SCS allowed is 'register'.
- // NOTE: we could trivially allow 'int foo(auto int X)' if we wanted.
if (DS.getStorageClassSpec() != DeclSpec::SCS_unspecified &&
DS.getStorageClassSpec() != DeclSpec::SCS_register) {
Diag(DS.getStorageClassSpecLoc(),
@@ -1353,11 +1352,6 @@
DS.ClearStorageClassSpecs();
}
- // Inform the actions module about the parameter declarator, so it gets
- // added to the current scope.
- Action::TypeResult ParamTy =
- Actions.ActOnParamDeclaratorType(CurScope, ParmDecl);
-
// Remember this parsed parameter in ParamInfo.
IdentifierInfo *ParmII = ParmDecl.getIdentifier();
@@ -1366,28 +1360,28 @@
Diag(ParmDecl.getIdentifierLoc(), diag::err_param_redefinition,
ParmII->getName());
ParmII = 0;
+ ParmDecl.setInvalidType(true);
}
// If no parameter was specified, verify that *something* was specified,
// otherwise we have a missing type and identifier.
if (DS.getParsedSpecifiers() == DeclSpec::PQ_None &&
ParmDecl.getIdentifier() == 0 && ParmDecl.getNumTypeObjects() == 0) {
+ // Completely missing, emit error.
Diag(DSStart, diag::err_missing_param);
- } else if (!DS.hasTypeSpecifier() &&
- (getLang().C99 || getLang().CPlusPlus)) {
- // Otherwise, if something was specified but a type specifier wasn't,
- // (e.g. "x" or "restrict x" or "restrict"), this is a use of implicit
- // int. This is valid in C90, but not in C99 or C++.
- if (ParmII)
- Diag(ParmDecl.getIdentifierLoc(),
- diag::ext_param_requires_type_specifier, ParmII->getName());
- else
- Diag(DSStart, diag::ext_anon_param_requires_type_specifier);
- }
+ } else {
+ // Otherwise, we have something. Add it and let semantic analysis try
+ // to grok it and add the result to the ParamInfo we are building.
- ParamInfo.push_back(DeclaratorChunk::ParamInfo(ParmII,
- ParmDecl.getIdentifierLoc(), ParamTy.Val, ParmDecl.getInvalidType(),
- ParmDecl.getDeclSpec().TakeAttributes()));
+ // Inform the actions module about the parameter declarator, so it gets
+ // added to the current scope.
+ Action::TypeResult ParamTy =
+ Actions.ActOnParamDeclaratorType(CurScope, ParmDecl);
+
+ ParamInfo.push_back(DeclaratorChunk::ParamInfo(ParmII,
+ ParmDecl.getIdentifierLoc(), ParamTy.Val, ParmDecl.getInvalidType(),
+ ParmDecl.getDeclSpec().TakeAttributes()));
+ }
// If the next token is a comma, consume it and keep reading arguments.
if (Tok.isNot(tok::comma)) break;
diff --git a/lib/Parse/Parser.cpp b/lib/Parse/Parser.cpp
index 7609124..cd99fc0 100644
--- a/lib/Parse/Parser.cpp
+++ b/lib/Parse/Parser.cpp
@@ -467,7 +467,7 @@
// If this is C90 and the declspecs were completely missing, fudge in an
// implicit int. We do this here because this is the only place where
// declaration-specifiers are completely optional in the grammar.
- if (getLang().isC90() && !D.getDeclSpec().getParsedSpecifiers() == 0) {
+ if (getLang().ImplicitInt && D.getDeclSpec().getParsedSpecifiers() == 0) {
const char *PrevSpec;
D.getDeclSpec().SetTypeSpecType(DeclSpec::TST_int, D.getIdentifierLoc(),
PrevSpec);
diff --git a/lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp b/lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp
index ca56c56..d46e997 100644
--- a/lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp
+++ b/lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
QualType Result;
switch (DS.getTypeSpecType()) {
- default: return QualType(); // FIXME: Handle unimp cases!
+ default: assert(0 && "Unknown TypeSpecType!");
case DeclSpec::TST_void:
Result = Context.VoidTy;
break;
@@ -42,7 +42,29 @@
Result = Context.UnsignedCharTy;
}
break;
- case DeclSpec::TST_unspecified: // Unspecific typespec defaults to int.
+ case DeclSpec::TST_unspecified:
+ // Unspecified typespec defaults to int in C90. However, the C90 grammar
+ // [C90 6.5] only allows a decl-spec if there was *some* type-specifier,
+ // type-qualifier, or storage-class-specifier. If not, emit an extwarn.
+ // Note that the one exception to this is function definitions, which are
+ // allowed to be completely missing a declspec. This is handled in the
+ // parser already though by it pretending to have seen an 'int' in this
+ // case.
+ if (getLangOptions().ImplicitInt) {
+ if ((DS.getParsedSpecifiers() & (DeclSpec::PQ_StorageClassSpecifier |
+ DeclSpec::PQ_TypeSpecifier |
+ DeclSpec::PQ_TypeQualifier)) == 0)
+ Diag(DS.getSourceRange().getBegin(), diag::ext_missing_declspec);
+ } else {
+ // C99 and C++ require a type specifier. For example, C99 6.7.2p2 says:
+ // "At least one type specifier shall be given in the declaration
+ // specifiers in each declaration, and in the specifier-qualifier list in
+ // each struct declaration and type name."
+ if (!DS.hasTypeSpecifier())
+ Diag(DS.getSourceRange().getBegin(), diag::ext_missing_type_specifier);
+ }
+
+ // FALL THROUGH.
case DeclSpec::TST_int: {
if (DS.getTypeSpecSign() != DeclSpec::TSS_unsigned) {
switch (DS.getTypeSpecWidth()) {