AaronBallman wrote: > I think that the diagnostic change is reasonable. Clang doesn't support > OpenCL C++ at present so we won't need to worry about it. However the mission > of C++ for OpenCL is to track C++ and track OpenCL i.e. we may want to update > to C++ with reflection. So it would be good to keep this as an option. But we > don't have this plan right now. > > So if we keep this as reserve identifier for C++ for OpenCL it is probably > the best approach since if one day we decide to upgrade it to C++ with > reflection the code using `^^` would not longer be invalid. Does it make > sense?
Thanks! Making sure I follow along, basically you're saying this patch is good because it keeps the `^^` token reserved, and if/when OpenCL supports C++, it can then use this token for reflection in C++ (if that's chosen by WG21 for the syntax) or use it for its own needs? One thing to make sure we're both on the same page for -- should the OpenCL spec folks be alerted to the fact that `^^` as a single token conflicts with blocks in C? (That suggests it's perhaps not a good token to use for a binary operator and maybe they want to un-reserve it?) https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108224 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
