aaron.ballman added a comment.
Thank you for working on this! Just a few questions, but in general, this is
looking good.
================
Comment at: clang/docs/LanguageExtensions.rst:1386
+Relaxed constexpr __cpp_constexpr C++14
C++11
+Designated initializers __cpp_designated_initializers C++20
C++03
+Attributes on enums __cpp_enumerator_attributes C++17
C++11
----------------
This brings up a few questions for me: how should we handle C? For example,
designated initializers also exist in C99 and are backported to C89? And how
should we handle C features extended into C++ (or vice versa)?
Should we have multiple tables? Should we try to put both languages into one
table with different columns?
(I'm not asking you to sign up to figure out the C extensions, just trying to
get an idea for whether we want to change the layout of this table to account
for that sort of thing.)
================
Comment at: clang/docs/LanguageExtensions.rst:1387
+Designated initializers __cpp_designated_initializers C++20
C++03
+Attributes on enums __cpp_enumerator_attributes C++17
C++11
+Guaranteed copy elision __cpp_guaranteed_copy_elision C++17
C++03
----------------
What are your thoughts on extensions enabled by a feature flag? e.g.,
https://godbolt.org/z/ex9K5dzv6
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D150321/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D150321
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
