On Apr 11, 2012, at 8:54 AM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:51 PM, David Chisnall <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11 Apr 2012, at 16:46, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > > It seems like this should get an ext-warn... > > In which case we'd get a load of them for anything using libc++. > > No? System headers suppress warnings fer exactly this reason. > I don't think this should be an ext-warn. If we're to ext-warn about C11 _Atomics in C++, we should do so at the point where one writes _Atomic in the source, not for each use of the _Atomic. - Doug
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
