erik.pilkington added a comment. In D91630#2399995 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91630#2399995>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> Can you mention this change in the release notes? Also, should we document it > explicitly in the Language Extensions documentation, or do you think this is > too tiny of a feature to warrant that? Sure, I added release notes and language extension docs. I also added a __has_extension for this. That might all be a little overkill, I'm happy to pull out those changes if so. In D91630#2400731 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91630#2400731>, @rsmith wrote: > Do `[[deprecated]]` and `[[maybe_unused]]` now work for > //using-declarator//s? If so, a test for that would be useful. `[[deprecated]]` gets applied, but it doesn't have any effect, since we don't attach an attribute to the UsingShadowDecl, and regardless, we already look past the UsingShadowDecl before we reach DiagnoseUseOfDecl. I added a -Wignored-attributes diagnostic to call this out. ================ Comment at: clang/lib/Parse/ParseDeclCXX.cpp:714 - // C++11 attributes are not allowed on a using-declaration, but GNU ones - // are. ProhibitAttributes(MisplacedAttrs); + DiagnoseCXX11AttributeExtension(PrefixAttrs); ---------------- rsmith wrote: > Should we suggest moving the attributes after the identifier in this case > (even though that will leave the program ill-formed), as we do for > alias-declarations? Sure, I added this in the new patch. ================ Comment at: clang/lib/Parse/ParseDeclCXX.cpp:737 + DiagnoseCXX11AttributeExtension(Attrs); + Attrs.addAll(PrefixAttrs.begin(), PrefixAttrs.end()); ---------------- rsmith wrote: > Should the prefix attributes go before the suffix attributes? (I could > imagine there might be attributes for which order matters.) What do we do in > the simple-declaration case? Surprisingly, this does apply attributes to the beginning of the list: ``` void addAll(iterator B, iterator E) { AttrList.insert(AttrList.begin(), B.I, E.I); } ``` This is consistent with simple-declarations. ================ Comment at: clang/test/Parser/cxx0x-attributes.cpp:134 -[[]] using ns::i; // expected-error {{an attribute list cannot appear here}} +[[]] using ns::i; [[unknown]] using namespace ns; // expected-warning {{unknown attribute 'unknown' ignored}} ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > Btw, a `-pedantic` test for the parser behavior would be useful so that we > can be sure the new diagnostic is firing as expected. Sure, I added that in a new test file. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D91630/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D91630 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
