================ @@ -436,6 +436,14 @@ def warn_cxx23_compat_warning_directive : Warning< def warn_c23_compat_warning_directive : Warning< "#warning is incompatible with C standards before C23">, InGroup<CPre23Compat>, DefaultIgnore; +def ext_pp_embed_directive : ExtWarn< ---------------- AaronBallman wrote:
> Is there a reason why this is a ExtWarn and not Extension? We're consistently inconsistent; if you look through `DiagnosticParseKinds.td` you'll see we're all over the place. I think the organic rule tends to be whether the patch author thinks the failure mode from not noticing use of the extension will be disruptive or not. I think for the preprocessor we'd generally use `ExtWarn` for new directives because those are *really* not portable and can lead to some very odd follow-on diagnostics. That's why we went with `ExtWarn` for `#elifdef` (also new in C23), though I think it's less of a concern with `#embed`. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/95802 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
