rsmith added a comment. Please update cxx_status.html to mark P1771R1 as implemented in SVN.
================ Comment at: clang/test/CXX/dcl.dcl/dcl.attr/dcl.attr.nodiscard/p2.cpp:87-88 // expected-warning@28 {{use of the 'nodiscard' attribute is a C++17 extension}} +// expected-warning@66 {{use of the 'nodiscard' attribute is a C++17 extension}} +// expected-warning@71 {{use of the 'nodiscard' attribute is a C++17 extension}} #endif ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > erichkeane wrote: > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > Is Core treating this paper as a DR? I don't have a strong opinion here, > > > but for the nodiscard with a message version, I made it a C++2a > > > extension. I don't have a strong opinion, but I sort of prefer doing > > > whatever Core decides. > > I am unfamiliar with what Core is treating it as, but my understanding is > > that EWG encouraged implementers to treat it as such. > We expose the attribute in all its glory in all language modes, so these > changes already do what we want in effect. The only real question is whether > we want to claim it's a C++17 extension or a C++2a extension. If a user turns > on extension warnings, we should probably tell them when the feature was > added, which is C++2a. It would be a bit weird to claim this is a C++17 when > the feature test for it is `__has_attribute(nodiscard) == 201907L` (due to > the normative wording changes). > > But if Core moves it as a DR, then C++17 is fine, though I suppose SD-6 would > need to make clear what is required for each given attribute feature test > value to give us the answer. We moved this change as a DR, so this feature should be treated as if it were always part of the spec. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D64914/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D64914 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits