rsmith added a comment.
Please update cxx_status.html to mark P1771R1 as implemented in SVN.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CXX/dcl.dcl/dcl.attr/dcl.attr.nodiscard/p2.cpp:87-88
// expected-warning@28 {{use of the 'nodiscard' attribute is a C++17
extension}}
+// expected-warning@66 {{use of the 'nodiscard' attribute is a C++17
extension}}
+// expected-warning@71 {{use of the 'nodiscard' attribute is a C++17
extension}}
#endif
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> erichkeane wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > Is Core treating this paper as a DR? I don't have a strong opinion here,
> > > but for the nodiscard with a message version, I made it a C++2a
> > > extension. I don't have a strong opinion, but I sort of prefer doing
> > > whatever Core decides.
> > I am unfamiliar with what Core is treating it as, but my understanding is
> > that EWG encouraged implementers to treat it as such.
> We expose the attribute in all its glory in all language modes, so these
> changes already do what we want in effect. The only real question is whether
> we want to claim it's a C++17 extension or a C++2a extension. If a user turns
> on extension warnings, we should probably tell them when the feature was
> added, which is C++2a. It would be a bit weird to claim this is a C++17 when
> the feature test for it is `__has_attribute(nodiscard) == 201907L` (due to
> the normative wording changes).
>
> But if Core moves it as a DR, then C++17 is fine, though I suppose SD-6 would
> need to make clear what is required for each given attribute feature test
> value to give us the answer.
We moved this change as a DR, so this feature should be treated as if it were
always part of the spec.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D64914/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D64914
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
