lebedev.ri added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/cxx2a-initializer-aggregates.cpp:30 +// out of order designators +A a1 = {.y = 1, .x = 2}; // expected-warning {{designated initializers are a C99 feature}} + ---------------- hintonda wrote: > Rakete1111 wrote: > > Those warnings are misleading, since C++20 does have designated > > initializers; they just don't support some stuff that C99 does. It would be > > better IMO if you could separate them. As in, the above should give you: > > `out-of-order designated initializers are a C99 feature` or something like > > that. > I think that would be a good idea as well, but wanted to get advise first. > As in, the above should give you: out-of-order designated initializers are a > C99 feature or something like that. I suppose also the question is, whether to error-out, or support them as an extension? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D59754/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D59754 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits