On 14/01/2014 22:05, Richard Smith wrote:
Well:
1) the context is an "incompatible with C++98" diagnostic
2) we really don't need to worry about theoretical future C17 or
OpenMP constructs now; we can easily change our diagnostics if we ever
support those things
Sorry, I didn't mention -- the diag clarification change was split out
from the C11 attributes extension I'd promised to help Renato with for
his 'vectorize' attribute.
Having split this part out as an unrelated change may have inadvertently
lost some of the context as to why it was useful :-)
3) we have the '[[' in the snippet
4) a %select is *better* than a single fixed string if it makes the
diagnostic clearer
I'm fine with "'[[...]]' attributes" or similar, although it seems a
little redundant given (3). "C++ attributes" or "C++11 attributes"
work for me.
"C++11 attributes" works in this scenario if you want to go ahead and
change it, but let's keep options open to go back on that, because it
looks a little silly alongside the C11 version:
|def ext_cxx11_attribute_in_c : ExtWarn<||
|| "generalized attributes are a non-standard C extension">,
InGroup<CXXAttributes>;|
I'll throw up the full patch in a bit.
Alp.
--
http://www.nuanti.com
the browser experts
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
