royjacobson added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaExprCXX.cpp:5400-5401
+ SourceLocation KWLoc) {
+ if (!S.getLangOpts().CPlusPlus11)
+ return;
+
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> erichkeane wrote:
> > royjacobson wrote:
> > > erichkeane wrote:
> > > > royjacobson wrote:
> > > > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > > > I think we should always warn on these, not just in C++11.
> > > > > I'm not convinced we should. My reasoning is that we need a pretty
> > > > > good reason to start issuing warnings for 20 years old code. The
> > > > > usage of those builtins with deleted functions after C++11 is pretty
> > > > > broken which is a pretty good reason, but for earlier language
> > > > > versions they work 'fine' and if people want to use C++03 I prefer
> > > > > leaving them at peace :)
> > > > >
> > > > > People on C++03 are also probably using pretty old versions of
> > > > > libstdc++ and/or boost type_traits, so this could have some impact.
> > > > >
> > > > > WDYT?
> > > > >
> > > > warnings don't get emitted for code in header files, so at least that
> > > > part isn't a concern.
> > > Any header files, or just system headers?
> > Sorry, yes, Phab is a mess on a cell phone... in things included as System
> > Headers.
> Agreed with Erich -- warnings in system headers (but not regular headers) are
> silenced by default, you need to pass `-Wsystem-headers` to enable them.
To clarify my position, I think about those builtins as an unofficial part of
the C++03 standard and I think we should support them as long as we support
C++03.
Do you think that's reasonable?
I agree we should update the documentation in this case.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D129170/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D129170
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
