================
@@ -671,10 +671,8 @@ static void InitializeCPlusPlusFeatureTestMacros(const
LangOptions &LangOpts,
LangOpts.CPlusPlus23 ? "202211L"
: LangOpts.CPlusPlus17 ? "201603L"
: "200907");
- Builder.defineMacro("__cpp_static_assert", LangOpts.CPlusPlus26 ? "202306L"
- : LangOpts.CPlusPlus17
- ? "201411L"
- : "200410");
+ // C++17 / C++26 static_assert backported
+ Builder.defineMacro("__cpp_static_assert", "202306L");
----------------
AaronBallman wrote:
I agree with @cor3ntin -- pedantic errors and feature testing are a wider
concern; in addition to #77262 we also have #84372 which is a similar problem
but with `__has_extension` and pedantic errors.
In your example, the user is getting precisely what they asked for and I don't
see the issue. They explicitly opt in to diagnostics about code that uses
extensions in C++14 mode, so the diagnostic warning is expected. And they
explicitly opt to make all warnings be errors, so upgrading the warning to an
error is expected.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/102044
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
