[cfe-dev] Working on c++2a Designated initializers

[Walter Gray via cfe-dev]

Excellent, thanks!

Regarding the error I mentioned, I've managed to track down the repro case
our other engineers had reported, and it appears to be another instance of
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31732. I think that bug should
probably have it's priority raised though, because I've managed to create
variations on it which do not trigger any kind of assertion or warning in
normal clang builds, and wind up causing really tricky errors like
constructors silently never being called, or lines of code that involve
types constructed in this fashion simply being removed. I'll see what I can
do about building a fix - The error can't happen in c++20 conformant code,
however as long as clang allows this extension, people using it should at
least get a warning when they trip this kind of behavior.

On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 9:29 AM <Matthew.Davis at sony.com> wrote:

> Hi Walter,
>
> Excuse my empty response just a second ago...
>
> > From: cfe-dev <cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Walter Gray
> via cfe-dev
> > Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 6:33 PM
>
> [snip]
>
> > I wondered if there was a currently outstanding ticket or if anyone had
> started work on implementing the C++20 version and warnings for
> non-standard behavior? I checked Phabricator, but didn't see anything
> obvious. I realize properly adding support is probably a more involved
> project than just a few days, but I was thinking it might be nice to work
> on in my down time over the winter to get a better understanding of how
> clang operates.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Walter
>
> While I don't have much details, you can keep track of the c++2a support
> here:
> https://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html
>
> -Matt
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20181116/bdad304b/attachment.html>