Rakete1111 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:
> 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.
> I suppose also the question is, whether to error-out, or support them as an
> extension?
Yes that's true. gcc doesn't support them at all in C++, and it seems like we
accept it as well, but only for C classes (constructors make clang crash).
But making it an error now breaks backwards compatibility. So I think the best
solution is to accept it for now, 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
