hintonda marked an inline comment as done.
hintonda 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}}
+
----------------
lebedev.ri wrote:
> 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?
>
Although most of them seem fine, the nested ones can be problematic. Please
see https://reviews.llvm.org/D17407 for a proposal on how to fix them.
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
