aaron.ballman added a comment. In D127462#3950108 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D127462#3950108>, @ksaunders wrote:
>> Just to check -- do you think (some of) these features are something you >> wish to propose to WG14 for adoption into C? e.g., are you aiming to get >> multiple compilers to implement Plan 9 extensions to demonstrate to WG14 >> that this is existing practice in C compilers? > > A lot of the Plan 9 extensions were actually adopted by C99 like compound > literals and anonymous structures. Although I find these additional > extensions interesting and useful, I don't think that they belong in C and > they should remain as non-standard extensions. My interests lie in compiling > existing code with Clang which utilizes these extensions, rather than > encouraging new code to utilize them. > > There was actually a proposal to add Plan 9 extensions into the Linux kernel, > but Linus rejected it. I personally share his opinion that the silent type > conversion that the Plan 9 compilers introduce can be problematic. But on the > other hand, they are also very powerful when used judiciously. It's on the > LKML here if you're interested: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/9/1127 Thank you for the details (and the later technical explanations as well)! Then yes, I'm in agreement that we shouldn't add these extensions at this time. We can revisit should anything change in the future. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D127462/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D127462 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
