On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:00 PM, James Dennett <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:02 AM, James Dennett <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I have a patch to follow this to fix >>> RecursiveASTVisitor::TraverseLambdaExpr, but testing it requires use >>> of C++11 lambdas (strangely enough), so this (tiny) patch is a >>> precursor to enable that test. >>> >>> I kept the default as C++98 for now, and I didn't add an explicit >>> Lang_C99 or Lang_CXX1Y (figuring that they can be added if/when >>> they're needed). >>> >>> I'd like to get a sanity check before I commit this. Any takers? >> >> Any reason not to remap Lang_CXX to C++11? > > (1) Cowardice, a.k.a., trying to make a minimal change for safety; > (2) Clang still defaults to C++98 mode AFAIK, so defaulting to running > tests the same way makes some sense. > > Defaulting these tests to C++11 mode seems a reasonable idea, but it's > separable from this patch. I'd be happy to send out the one-line > patch for that separately and see what people think.
OK, feel free to go ahead with this patch to unblock your other bug fix. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
