aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticLexKinds.td:290 + "encoding prefix '%0' on an unevaluated string literal has no effect" + "%select{| and is incompatible with c++2c}1">, + InGroup<DiagGroup<"invalid-unevaluated-string">>; ---------------- hubert.reinterpretcast wrote: > I am not seeing any tests covering C mode. > > @aaron.ballman, can you confirm that you are okay with the warning when > processing C code (and, moreover, the newly-added errors for numeric escape > sequences)? > Good call on C test coverage, thank you for bringing that up! I think the behavior in C is reasonable, even if it's not mandated by the standard. We're going from issuing an error in C to issuing a warning and the warning text helpfully omits the C++2c part of the diagnostic, so it seems like we're more relaxed in C than we previously were. Do you have concerns about the behavior in C? (Or are you saying you'd prefer this to be an error in C as it was before?) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D156596/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D156596 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits