aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/test/Parser/objc-static-assert.mm:1 +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify -Wno-objc-root-class %s + ---------------- thakis wrote: > aaron.ballman wrote: > > Can you try explicitly specifying C++98 as the underlying language standard > > mode? I feel like `_Static_assert()` will continue to work there (because > > we made it a language extension in all modes) but `static_assert()` may > > fail (because that's gated on C++11 support). If that turns out to be the > > case, then I think `objc_static_assert` should be more complex than > > expanding to `true`, or we should talk about supporting `static_assert()` > > in all C++ language modes like we do for `_Static_assert()`. > Correct, with -std=c++98 static_assert isn't available but _Static_assert > still is. If you want, I can add a test for this, but this is covered by > regular c++ tests already. > > I think the has_feature() should stay as-is though: Else you have no way to > know if _Static_assert works in obj-c mode, and you can check if > static_assert works by checkout has_feature && __cplusplus >= 201103L if you > still care about c++98. > > (And adding one feature each for static_assert and _Static_assert seems like > overkill.) > Correct, with -std=c++98 static_assert isn't available but _Static_assert > still is. If you want, I can add a test for this, but this is covered by > regular c++ tests already. Please do (if we don't change the availability of `static_assert()`), because the test currently relies on the unwritten -std option in order to pass. > I think the has_feature() should stay as-is though: Else you have no way to > know if _Static_assert works in obj-c mode, and you can check if > static_assert works by checkout has_feature && __cplusplus >= 201103L if you > still care about c++98. I don't think this is the correct approach. Testing for `static_assert()` support should not leave the user guessing at what the correct spelling is. > (And adding one feature each for static_assert and _Static_assert seems like > overkill.) Definitely agreed there. I think the correct way forward is to support `static_assert()` in all language modes like we already do for `_Static_assert()`, then `objc_static_assert` becomes useful as-is. I cannot think of a reason why we would want to allow `_Static_assert()` in C++ but not allow `static_assert()`. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D59223/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D59223 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
