cor3ntin added a comment. In D133887#3797614 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D133887#3797614>, @Izaron wrote:
>> Why checking getLangOpts().C99 instead of just C > > There is no `getLangOpts().C`. Here are possible C/C++ opt flags: > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/7914e53e312074828293356f569d190ac6eae3bd/clang/include/clang/Basic/LangOptions.def#L86-L100 > I have no understanding why there is no `getLangOpts().C` flag. Maybe the C89 > standard is a subset of all other C/C++/ObjC standards, so we don't need the > flag?.. I missed that. Yes, i think the way do that is to check `!getLangOpts().CPlusPlus` >> Whyt no compatibility warning in C23 mode > > @aaron.ballman said so in https://reviews.llvm.org/D133887#3793027 > > It should definitely be without warning in C23 mode and give an extension > warning in earlier modes. > > I don't know much about extension/incompatible warnings policy (when to apply > and not apply them), could you please help me to figure this out with Aaron? 😃 I checked with Aaron, he meant no warning _by default_, but there should definitely be an extension warning. exact same thing as C++. Sorry for the confusion. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D133887/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D133887 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
