RIscRIpt added a comment. In D133853#3799344 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D133853#3799344>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> It's a conforming extension in older language modes like C++98, where we > couldn't steal the `constexpr` keyword because it's not reserved, which is > one benefit to it. Does MSVC support this as far back as C++98? Tbh, I cannot understand your question in relation to your statement, and where did you get that statement from 🙂 > Does MSVC support this as far back as C++98? I don't know. AFAIK - no. @h-vetinari thanks for your input. I'll try to update this patch as per our discussion: 1. `[[msvc::constexpr]]` handle like `constexpr` for functions with `-fms-extensions` (according to MSVC error message: `C7687: [[msvc::constexpr]] may only be applied to statements and functions`); I won't implement semantic meaning for statements, as I am now aware of it and there's no constexpr effect on statements. 2. Possibly take a look at `[[msvc::no_unique_address]]` Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D133853/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D133853 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
