tahonermann added a comment.

I don't have a strong opinion regarding when, or if, the diagnostic is reverted 
to an always-error. It looks like gcc is not even planning to diagnose 
identifiers that are ill-formed according to the new rules by default.

With regard to Corentin's opposition to the patch as is, I think it would be 
acceptable to put this patch in Clang 15 as is and then tighten things up as 
Corentin suggests for Clang 16. The patch as is is very low risk (it barely 
even qualifies as a code change). any change to address Corentin's concerns 
would add some additional risk this late in the release, and the only people 
impacted are those that opt-in to the new option. I do agree with Corentin's 
concern that suppressing the error does look like it would have the effect of 
allowing identifiers that were not previously allowed under the immutable 
identifier syntax; I think we do want to ensure that identifiers that are in 
neither immutable identifier syntax nor default identifier syntax are diagnosed 
(at least in Clang 16).



================
Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:119-121
+- Added the ``-Winvalid-identifier-character`` warning group to identify
+  identifier characters which are invalid according to UAX31 but were
+  previously allowed. This warning defaults to an error because these
----------------
Most people reading this won't know what UAX31 is. Linking to it would help 
some, but the document is fairly inscrutable to the uninitiated. How about 
something like the following?
  The ``-Winvalid-identifier-character`` warning group was added to manage 
diagnostics
  regarding use of invalid identifiers following the adoption of N2836 and 
P1949 by the
  C and C++ committees respectively. This warning default to an error because 
...


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D132877/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D132877

_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to