-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.3k
[Clang] Add warning message for C++17 alias template CTAD #133806
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
cor3ntin
merged 7 commits into
llvm:main
from
GeorgeKA:125913-warning_msg_for_cxx17_alias_template_CTAD
Apr 3, 2025
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
dd97898
Add warning message for C++17 alias template CTAD
GeorgeKA c48c4a6
Switched to using multiclasses for both messages
GeorgeKA 01789a4
Adde release notes
GeorgeKA 42a08fb
Merge branch 'main' into 125913-warning_msg_for_cxx17_alias_template_…
GeorgeKA 5299a58
Merge branch 'llvm:main' into 125913-warning_msg_for_cxx17_alias_temp…
GeorgeKA df703ea
Switched to using DiagCompat for compatibility messages
GeorgeKA eec39e4
Merge branch 'main' into 125913-warning_msg_for_cxx17_alias_template_…
GeorgeKA File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Sirraide while I get the "efficiency" here I am bit uncomfortable that as a reviewer it is no longer obvious what diagnostics I need to look for in tests and as we have seen here easy to overlook that we are not fully covering tests.
This feels very anti-ergonomic for code reviewers. Maybe worth discussing during wg meeting CC @AaronBallman
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I feel like that might mainly be because this is a new thing we just added. I personally don’t think it’s that big of a deal because the wording of compatibility warnings is very consistent as a result of this, so so long as it’s clear that this always generates something of the form ‘... incompatibile with C++ standards before C++XY’ and ‘... a C++XY extension’, you know what to look for.
Also, even if it adds another thing to be aware of, it also removes the need to check if the compatibility warning is actually written correctly and whether we’re checking for the right lang opt when we emit it etc. etc. (though of course that last part will only come into effect once #132348 is merged).