PR17666: Instead of allowing an initial identifier argument in any attribute

which we don't think can't have one, only allow it in the tiny number of
attributes which opts into this weird parse rule.

I've manually checked that the handlers for all these attributes can in fact
cope with an identifier as the argument. This is still somewhat terrible; we
should move more fully towards picking the parsing rules based on the
attribute, and make the Parse -> Sema interface more type-safe.

llvm-svn: 193295

1 files changed, 6 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/clang/test/Parser/cxx-attributes.cpp b/clang/test/Parser/cxx-attributes.cpp
index 97380521f87..3c99ccdb3a7 100644
--- a/clang/test/Parser/cxx-attributes.cpp
+++ b/clang/test/Parser/cxx-attributes.cpp
@@ -11,3 +11,9 @@ template <typename T> class X {
   template <typename S> void X<S>::f() __attribute__((locks_excluded())); // expected-error{{nested name specifier 'X<S>::' for declaration does not refer into a class, class template or class template partial specialization}} \
                                                                           // expected-warning{{attribute locks_excluded ignored, because it is not attached to a declaration}}
 };
+
+namespace PR17666 {
+  const int A = 1;
+  typedef int __attribute__((__aligned__(A))) T1;
+  int check1[__alignof__(T1) == 1 ? 1 : -1];
+}