================
@@ -102,11 +102,21 @@ namespace PR33839 {
for (auto [x] : a) { // expected-warning {{unused variable '[x]'}}
}
}
- void use() {
+ void use() {
f<int>(); // expected-note {{instantiation of}}
g<true>();
g<false>();
h<int>(); // expected-note {{instantiation of}}
}
}
+
+namespace maybe_unused_binding {
+
+void test() {
+ struct X { int a, b; } x;
+ auto [a [[maybe_unused]], b] = x; // expected-warning {{an attribute
specifier sequence attached to a structured binding declaration is a C++2c
extension}}
----------------
cor3ntin wrote:
> Are there any standard attributes other than this that make sense on SB's? If
> not, I'd like all of the standards ones tested to show what the behavior is
> (and 'not valid here' type errors are totally acceptable).
No, I can add tests
>
> `[[indeterminate]]` seems useful, but the rest should likely result in a
> rejection.
We do not have this one
>
> Additionally, we should do an audit of ALL our "C++" spelling attributes to
> see which make sense here and to make sure they are treated reasonably. I'm
> not asking to do that HERE, but a bug in our bug tracker (perhaps with a
> 'good starter bug' tag, particularly if we list ALL our attributes that need
> auditing) would be acceptable.
Yes, I can create an issue once we land that
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/89906
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
