From d502822e682a1147e64e63ae93af2e8f794f05b0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Aaron Ballman Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2025 12:46:53 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] [C] static_assert in a for loop is not an extension (#151955) The original wording can be squinted at to pretend this was always allowed. GCC squints at it that way, so we're doing the same and no longer issuing an extension diagnostic for use of static_assert in the condition-1 of a for loop in C. Fixes #149633 (cherry picked from commit cb50d78a0063244434d883d89ddda7f74abbffc9) --- clang/lib/Sema/SemaStmt.cpp | 6 +++++- clang/test/Sema/for.c | 3 +-- 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaStmt.cpp b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaStmt.cpp index f85826aecadf3..f46be75bda20f 100644 --- a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaStmt.cpp +++ b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaStmt.cpp @@ -2287,7 +2287,11 @@ StmtResult Sema::ActOnForStmt(SourceLocation ForLoc, SourceLocation LParenLoc, // we can diagnose if we don't see any variable declarations. This // covers a case like declaring a typedef, function, or structure // type rather than a variable. - NonVarSeen = DI; + // + // Note, _Static_assert is acceptable because it does not declare an + // identifier at all, so "for object having" does not apply. + if (!isa(DI)) + NonVarSeen = DI; } } // Diagnose if we saw a non-variable declaration but no variable diff --git a/clang/test/Sema/for.c b/clang/test/Sema/for.c index e16169aac0c4c..35c4720ef3305 100644 --- a/clang/test/Sema/for.c +++ b/clang/test/Sema/for.c @@ -26,6 +26,5 @@ void b11 (void) { for (static _Thread_local struct { int i; } s;s.i;); } /* c11- #endif void b12(void) { - for(_Static_assert(1, "");;) {} /* c11-warning {{non-variable declaration in 'for' loop is a C23 extension}} - c23-warning {{non-variable declaration in 'for' loop is incompatible with C standards before C23}} */ + for(_Static_assert(1, "");;) {} /* okay, _Static_assert declares *no* identifiers */ }