On Tue Jan 14 2014 at 2:57:29 PM, Alp Toker <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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: >
OK, I went ahead with this in r199443. Seems we don't need to worry about the C11 version for the time being, and we retain the option to reword this diagnostic later. > 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
