On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 05:15:03PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 10/11/21 9:17 AM, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > Any thoughts?
>
> I'm a little unsure. Clang just uses the replacement string
> as the text of the fix-it note as is, so it does nothing to
> help programmers make sure
On 10/11/21 9:17 AM, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
Any thoughts?
I'm a little unsure. Clang just uses the replacement string
as the text of the fix-it note as is, so it does nothing to
help programmers make sure the replacement is in sync with
what it's supposed to replace. E.g., for
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 11:19 AM Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Any thoughts?
I think it's a good idea, but then again I can't approve it, so...
well, who can, then?
>
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 12:16:36PM -0400, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > Clang implements something we
Any thoughts?
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 12:16:36PM -0400, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Clang implements something we don't have:
>
> __attribute__((deprecated("message", "replacement")));
>
> which seems pretty neat so I wrote this patch to add it to gcc.
>
> It doesn't allow the
Clang implements something we don't have:
__attribute__((deprecated("message", "replacement")));
which seems pretty neat so I wrote this patch to add it to gcc.
It doesn't allow the optional second argument in the standard [[]]
form so as not to clash with possible future standard additions.
I
