EricWF added a comment. I actually want this form of initialization to break in C++03, From the original review:
> After putting this question up on cfe-dev I have decided that it would be > best to allow the use of <atomic> in C++03. Although static initialization is > a concern the syntax required to get it is C++11 only. Meaning that C++11 > constant static initialization cannot silently break in C++03, it will always > cause a syntax error. Furthermore ATOMIC_VAR_INIT and ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT remain > defined in C++03 even though they cannot be used because C++03 usages will > cause better error messages. I think I'll just hack up these tests, or make them require C++11 or greater and add C++03 specific tests elsewhere. http://reviews.llvm.org/D19758 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
