aaron.ballman accepted this revision. aaron.ballman added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
In D87962#2307824 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D87962#2307824>, @rsmith wrote: > In D87962#2306043 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D87962#2306043>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> That doesn't sound like the right approach to me -- Remarks are usually for >> reporting backend decision-making to the frontend for things like >> optimization passes. > > To be clear: that's how they happen to most visibly be used, but the more > general idea is that Remarks are for purely informational messages. One test > for whether a diagnostic could reasonably be a remark is: can we imagine > anyone ever reasonably wanting to promote it to an error as part of the flags > for some project? If so, then use of a remark is inappropriate. That's > certainly the case here: it's entirely reasonable to want to be able to > reject use of non-portable functionality such as this. So I agree, this > should not be a remark. Thank you for the explanation! The patch LGTM with a minor nit about the test case. ================ Comment at: clang/test/Lexer/multi-char-constants.c:6 + +int main() { + return 0; ---------------- You can remove the empty `main()`. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D87962/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D87962 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
