to268 marked an inline comment as done. to268 added a comment. Thank you for your feedback @aaron.ballman! I really appreciate that you are pointing out all my formatting mistakes, and giving me more guidelines. The direction of the patch is clearer now.
In D133289#4489883 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D133289#4489883>, @aaron.ballman wrote: > I think there's a typo in the patch summary: > >> auto in an compound statement > > I think you mean "as the type of a compound literal"? Yes i was a mistake, I have edited the summary to fix that typo. In D133289#4489883 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D133289#4489883>, @aaron.ballman wrote: > - We should have an extension warning for array use with string literals > `auto str[] = "testing";` This makes sense, since auto arrays are prohibited in the standard. In D133289#4497901 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D133289#4497901>, @aaron.ballman wrote: > The committee is discussing this again on the reflectors. Thus far, almost > everyone reads the standard the same way as GCC did with their > implementation, which matches what I suggest above. However, there are folks > who are claiming we should not be able to deduce the derived type because > `_Atomic` forms an entirely new type and thus isn't actually a qualifier (and > there are some words in the standard that could maybe be read as supporting > that). The most conservative approach is to reject using `_Atomic auto` for > right now so users don't build a reliance on it. Eventually WG14 will make a > decision and we can relax that diagnostic then if we need to. Sorry for the > confusion on this topic! I was wondering about the support of `_Atomic auto`, i will add new error diagnostic to prohibit `_Atomic auto`, thank you for addressing that topic! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D133289/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D133289 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
