ldionne added a comment. In D66364#1637570 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66364#1637570>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D66364#1635863 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66364#1635863>, @ldionne wrote: > > > In D66364#1635814 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66364#1635814>, @aaron.ballman > > wrote: > > > > > [ ...] > > > > > > Adding some libc++ maintainers to see if they have opinions. > > > > > > `__extension__` is one option. Could we get away with push/pop disabling > > > of the diagnostic? Or perhaps this is a situation where we should not > > > diagnose use within a system header in the first place, because that's > > > part of the implementation? > > > > > > I just learned about `__extension__`, but from my perspective it makes > > sense to mark uses of `_Atomic` with `__extension__` (or disable the > > warning with a `#pragma`) inside libc++ if we're using something > > non-standard for the current dialect. I don't think Clang should bend its > > back for libc++ in this case. > > > Okay, that's good feedback, thank you! Please ping me directly if you expect libc++ maintainers to do something following this patch. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D66364/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D66364 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
