r199053 - Clarify warn_cxx98_compat_attribute diagnostic

[Richard Smith]

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 6:37 PM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> After doing a bit more research and discussion off-list, I think
> >> "generalized attribute" is acceptable.  So patch LGTM as-is.
> >
> >
> > Really? I wouldn't expect someone seeing this diagnostic to understand
> that
> > "generalized attribute" means C++11 attributes (it's a really weird term,
> > since they're not a generalization of anything). This isn't an official
> name
> > for them, and doesn't distinguish them from the other attribute syntaxes
> we
> > support. Given that this is a diagnostic about compatibility with C++98,
> > "C++11 attributes" seems like the clearest way of expressing this.
>
> As Alp had pointed out, we document the name as "generalized
> attribute" in our feature support documentation,


You're right, we did. I just fixed that.


> and it's the original name of the feature.


[citation needed]

The proposal calls them "General Attributes for C++" (and all previous
revisions of it did the same); the word "Generalized" seems to have been
accidentally transferred from "Generalized constant expressions" in the GCC
list, and we inherited that mistake when we sync'd our list with theirs in
r142015. The paper and C++ standard both call them simply "attributes".

Also, a quick google search of "generalized
> attribute" yielded more results than "C++11 attribute" did (not saying
> this was particularly scientific). So that's why I gave the LGTM on
> the term.
>

Hah, it seems that lots of people copied our C++11 feature list and GCC's,
picking up the wrong name =)

That being said, my original preference was for C++11 attribute
> instead, and as you point out, this is a C++98 compat diagnostic, so
> using "C++11" would be clear. Perhaps I should have stuck with my gut
> instead. ;-)
>
> ~Aaron
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20140113/53bf5eaa/attachment.html>