philnik added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:5690-5691 +def warn_unknown_ext : Warning<"Unknown extension kind: %0">; +def warn_cxx11_ext : Warning<"%0 is a C++11 extension">, + InGroup<CXX11>; +def warn_cxx14_ext : Warning<"%0 is a C++14 extension">, ---------------- cjdb wrote: > We shouldn't need this one, since Clang (almost) doesn't distinguish between > C++03 and C++11. To my knowledge, C++03 doesn't even support attributes, so > this would be a moot addition. It does enough to regularly cause headaches (no `>>`, `constexpr`, `alignas`, buggy `enum class`). C++03 has supported GNU attributes forever, and since LLVM 17 also supports C++11 attributes. Also note that this isn't a new warning. ================ Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/attr-library-extension.cpp:9-13 +#ifdef GNUAttr +#define EXTENSION(name) __attribute__((library_extension(name))) +#else +#define EXTENSION(name) [[clang::library_extension(name)]] +#endif ---------------- cjdb wrote: > I don't think we need to test for both of these: using > `[[clang::library_extension]]` directly should suffice. I've been asked to test both before, and IMO it's a good idea, since there are attributes which only have one of the spellings. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D157572/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D157572 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
