mclow.lists added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45179#1077055, @thakis wrote:
> So you're happy with this opt-in version? I'm happy with an opt-in mechanism, yes. This one is not quite right yet. BTW, I expect a //large// set of calls in the standard library to get marked as `[[nodiscard]]` in Rapperswil. ================ Comment at: include/__config:1016 +// because GCC does not silence them via (void) cast. +#if __has_cpp_attribute(nodiscard) && _LIBCPP_STD_VER > 17 +# define _LIBCPP_NODISCARD [[nodiscard]] ---------------- `[[nodiscard]]` is a C++17 feature. This test should be `>=`, not `>`. ================ Comment at: include/__config:1026 + (_LIBCPP_STD_VER > 17 || defined(_LIBCPP_FORCE_NODISCARD)) +# define _LIBCPP_NODISCARD_AFTER_CXX17 _LIBCPP_NODISCARD #else ---------------- I wouldn't change this; just leave it as `[[nodiscard]]` Repository: rCXX libc++ https://reviews.llvm.org/D45179 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
