nuriamari added a comment. In D153881#4467127 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D153881#4467127>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> I think it's a bit odd that we'd leave `const` under `-Wdeprecated` but > separate `constexpr` out into its own warning flag, but I'm also not opposed. Would moving both const and constexpr into their own warning flag work? I don't really see cases where you'd want to disable only one or the other. > Can you explain the need a bit more though? I think our belief was that > silencing this diagnostic was pretty trivial (delete the line in question), > so we wouldn't need a separate diagnostic group for it. In our case we have libraries that are consumed both with say C++14 and C++17, so we can't just delete them, we've needed to add a standard version check. Admittedly not a huge change either, but we ran into many occurrences of this warning trying to adopt the latest Clang. I suppose I don't see the downside of a little more granular control. > Also, these changes should have a release note added to > `clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst`. Will do. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D153881/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D153881 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
