rsmith added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:168-169 + ``-Wno-error=implicit-int``, or disabled entirely with ``-Wno-implicit-int``. + As of C2x, support for implicit int has been removed, and the warning options + will have no effect. Specifying ``-Wimplicit-int`` in C89 mode will now issue + warnings instead of being a noop. ---------------- Is there some fundamental reason why implicit int is harder to support in C2x (as there was for implicit function declarations, because unprototyped functions are gone), or are we merely taking the opportunity to do this because C2x is new? I find the former more easily defensible than the latter, but I suppose the fact that we removed implicit function declarations means that C2x is the first really properly breaking change that C has had, so maybe now is the time regardless. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D124258/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D124258 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
