aaron.ballman added a comment. In D133574#4085472 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D133574#4085472>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D133574#4085372 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D133574#4085372>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> So by my understanding, my original changes removing the extension warning >> (in D40267 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D40267>) were jumping the gun because >> the committee never made the change we said we'd make. So I believe this is >> still an extension as far as C conformance is concerned. That said, I'll >> check with the convener to see if he'd be too frustrated if I filed a CD2 >> comment asking for `member-designator` to be replaced with `subobject` based >> on prior discussion, so maayyyybbeee we can fix this for C2x still. > > I heard back and there's even more confusion -- we were tracking an older > copy of the DR list, and there's an update that clarifies this: > https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2396.htm#dr_496. So you're > right, the array and member access extension warnings need to be removed. > I'll take care of that and get it cherry picked into the Clang 16 branch. I posted https://reviews.llvm.org/D142723 to address this. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D133574/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D133574 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
