hubert.reinterpretcast added a comment. In D139586#3987252 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D139586#3987252>, @royjacobson wrote:
> The (non-wording) paper makes a pretty convincing case to just apply this > retroactively to any C++11 code > (https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2022/p2644r1.pdf). I > think we should apply this retroactively, maybe add a pedantic warning when > we do a lifetime extension on code before C++23. Just noting that the committee did not vote this in as a Defect Report, but I mostly agree that people should code for the new behaviour and that the old behaviour is unlikely to be relied on. I suspect this should be highlighted as technically a breaking change. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D139586/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D139586 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
