njames93 added a comment. In D101721#2733279 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D101721#2733279>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> That makes sense to me. Should we file a bug to suggest adding the > deprecation warning in Clang 14(?) and planned removal in Clang 16(?) so that > we don't lose track of this? (I have no firm opinion about which versions we > decide to start deprecating and remove so long as they're not disruptive.) I was thinking later tbh. clang-tidy 11 is where the spelling support was adopted and, more importantly, emitting a warning when a present key could not be parsed. Giving 3 years from there puts a deprecation notice in Clang17 (Assuming we stick to the same semiannual release cycle). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D101721/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D101721 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
