cor3ntin added a comment. In D133289#3773708 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D133289#3773708>, @to268 wrote:
> Also @aaron.ballman said me that he was thinking about maybe adding an > extension to add support for `auto` in a function return or in a parameter > list. I think extensions are best left to a separate pr, if at all. Supporting deduced return type sounds fine, with a warning. Supporting auto template parameters... Not so much, as it would in effect bring function templates, overloading and mangling into C... I don't think we want to go there. I think we should consider supporting auto in older language modes though. Or at least, improving the diagnostics for auto in older language modes. > type specifier missing, defaults to 'int'. The probability that someone tries to use auto as a storage specifier and want an implicit int at the same time is about 0. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D133289/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D133289 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
