Fix a regression in a previous patch that broke implicit
int in a bitfield. Shantonu found this in a gcc testsuite file.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@69074 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
diff --git a/lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp b/lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp
index 1fe0d93..a416838 100644
--- a/lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp
+++ b/lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp
@@ -440,7 +440,8 @@
// Validate declspec for type-name.
unsigned Specs = DS.getParsedSpecifiers();
- if (Specs == DeclSpec::PQ_None && !DS.getNumProtocolQualifiers())
+ if (Specs == DeclSpec::PQ_None && !DS.getNumProtocolQualifiers() &&
+ !DS.getAttributes())
Diag(Tok, diag::err_typename_requires_specqual);
// Issue diagnostic and remove storage class if present.
@@ -475,6 +476,7 @@
/// int x = 17; // init-declarator-list
/// int x , y; // init-declarator-list
/// int x __asm__ ("foo"); // init-declarator-list
+/// int x : 4; // struct-declarator
/// int x { 5}; // C++'0x unified initializers
///
/// This is not, because 'x' does not immediately follow the declspec (though
@@ -484,7 +486,7 @@
static bool isValidAfterIdentifierInDeclarator(const Token &T) {
return T.is(tok::l_square) || T.is(tok::l_paren) || T.is(tok::r_paren) ||
T.is(tok::semi) || T.is(tok::comma) || T.is(tok::equal) ||
- T.is(tok::kw_asm) || T.is(tok::l_brace);
+ T.is(tok::kw_asm) || T.is(tok::l_brace) || T.is(tok::colon);
}
/// ParseDeclarationSpecifiers
diff --git a/test/Sema/implicit-int.c b/test/Sema/implicit-int.c
index 71a5724..90fe607 100644
--- a/test/Sema/implicit-int.c
+++ b/test/Sema/implicit-int.c
@@ -22,3 +22,11 @@
ILPAD(); // expected-warning {{type specifier missing, defaults to 'int'}}
}
+struct foo {
+ __extension__ __attribute__((packed)) // expected-warning {{type specifier missing, defaults to 'int'}}
+ x : 4;
+};
+
+
+
+