<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Apr 11, 2012, at 8:54 AM, Chandler Carruth <<a href="mailto:chandlerc@google.com">chandlerc@google.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:51 PM, David Chisnall <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:csdavec@swan.ac.uk">csdavec@swan.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On 11 Apr 2012, at 16:46, Chandler Carruth wrote:<br>
<br>
> It seems like this should get an ext-warn...<br>
<br>
</div>In which case we'd get a load of them for anything using libc++.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No? System headers suppress warnings fer exactly this reason.</div><div> </div></div></blockquote><br></div><div>I don't think this should be an ext-warn. If we're to ext-warn about C11 _Atomics in C++, we should do so at the point where one writes _Atomic in the source, not for each use of the _Atomic.</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>- Doug</div></body></html>