While clang allows declarations in for loop init statements in c89 and
gnu89, gcc does not. So, we should probably warn if users care about gcc
compatibility.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47840
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@335927
91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-
96231b3b80d8
def warn_gcc_attribute_location : Warning<
"GCC does not allow an attribute in this position on a function declaration">,
InGroup<GccCompat>;
+def warn_gcc_variable_decl_in_for_loop : Warning<
+ "GCC does not allow variable declarations in for loop initializers before "
+ "C99">, InGroup<GccCompat>;
def warn_attribute_no_decl : Warning<
"attribute %0 ignored, because it is not attached to a declaration">,
InGroup<IgnoredAttributes>;
ParenBraceBracketBalancer BalancerRAIIObj(*this);
// Parse declaration, which eats the ';'.
- if (!C99orCXXorObjC) // Use of C99-style for loops in C90 mode?
+ if (!C99orCXXorObjC) { // Use of C99-style for loops in C90 mode?
Diag(Tok, diag::ext_c99_variable_decl_in_for_loop);
+ Diag(Tok, diag::warn_gcc_variable_decl_in_for_loop);
+ }
// In C++0x, "for (T NS:a" might not be a typo for ::
bool MightBeForRangeStmt = getLangOpts().CPlusPlus;
--- /dev/null
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c89 -fsyntax-only -verify %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=gnu89 -fsyntax-only -verify %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c99 -fsyntax-only -verify %s -DC99
+
+#ifdef C99
+// expected-no-diagnostics
+#endif
+
+void foo() {
+#ifndef C99
+ // expected-warning@+2{{GCC does not allow variable declarations in for loop initializers before C99}}
+#endif
+ for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
+ ;
+}