After doing a bit more research and discussion off-list, I think "generalized attribute" is acceptable. So patch LGTM as-is.
Thanks! ~Aaron On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Alp Toker <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 12/01/2014 15:29, Aaron Ballman wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Alp Toker <[email protected]> wrote: > > Author: alp > Date: Sun Jan 12 09:18:06 2014 > New Revision: 199053 > > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=199053&view=rev > Log: > Clarify warn_cxx98_compat_attribute diagnostic > > Various attribute flavours are supported in C++98. Make it clear that this > compatibility warning relates specifically to C++11-style generalized > attributes. > > Modified: > cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticParseKinds.td > cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/cxx98-compat.cpp > > Modified: cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticParseKinds.td > URL: > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticParseKinds.td?rev=199053&r1=199052&r2=199053&view=diff > ============================================================================== > --- cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticParseKinds.td (original) > +++ cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticParseKinds.td Sun Jan 12 > 09:18:06 2014 > @@ -517,7 +517,7 @@ def warn_cxx98_compat_nullptr : Warning< > def warn_cxx98_compat_alignas : Warning<"'alignas' is incompatible with > C++98">, > InGroup<CXX98Compat>, DefaultIgnore; > def warn_cxx98_compat_attribute : Warning< > - "attributes are incompatible with C++98">, > + "generalized attributes are incompatible with C++98">, > > What are "generalized" attributes? I think it would be better-worded > as "C++11 attributes are incompatible with C++98" (this is more > consistent with other parser diagnostics, as well). > > > > Hi Aaron, > > I'd say it's time to use the more natural name for C++11 attributes because > the syntax now appears in a published standard. That's the usual lifecycle > for clang language features moving from experimental to fully supported. > > As for the name itself, it's the terminology adopted by the C++ community > and also the name by which we advertise the feature on our own C++ status > page at http://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html: > > Generalized attributes N2761 Clang 3.3 (1) > > There's also a compelling reason _not_ to keep the old experimental naming > scheme indefinitely -- doing so will cause terminology dissonance as other > language dialects like ISO C look to adopt the new syntax, likewise if we > decide to introduce generalized attributes as a clang extension to C11 in > the meantime. > > Alp. > > > > Otherwise, LGTM! > > ~Aaron > > > -- > http://www.nuanti.com > the browser experts _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
