rsmith accepted this revision. rsmith added a comment. We use the `-Wc++NN-compat-` prefix on all the other subwarnings of `-Wc++NN-compat` warnings (examples: `-Wc++98-compat-bind-to-temporary-copy`, `-Wc++11-compat-reserved-user-defined-literal`, ...). I'd prefer to include the `-compat` in the name for consistency; I also find it less clear what the warning flag would mean without it (I would expect `-Wc++1z-mangling` to only fire in C++1z mode, whereas this warning never fires in C++1z mode).
`-Wc++1z-compat-mangling` seems fine to me. Just curious, though: what is the motivation for enabling the rest of `-Wc++1z-compat` but not this part? This seems a lot more serious than the other warnings in the group. (Regardless, I think this patch is useful for the opposite: enabling just this one warning without the rest...) https://reviews.llvm.org/D34251 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
