rsmith added a comment. In D150875#4353384 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D150875#4353384>, @erichkeane wrote:
> We are the only of the major compilers with this "extension" (I hesitate to > call it that, as I'm not sure this FITS in the 'extension's permitted by > standard) I'm not objecting to removing this extension, but... do you have reason to doubt that it's conforming, or just a lack of confidence that it is? (If the `SFINAEFailure` change wasn't enough, then it's not clear to me why this change would be. We use a `SFINAEFailure` diagnostic for other extensions, and if that's not sufficient for conformance then we probably have a lot of conformance gaps of this kind.) ================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:6985 +def err_typecheck_indirection_through_void_pointer_cpp + : Error<"ISO C++ does not allow indirection on operand of type %0">; def warn_indirection_through_null : Warning< ---------------- We normally only use this "ISO C++ does not allow" phrasing for extensions (with the implication being that ISO C++ doesn't allow it, but Clang does). Can you rephrase the diagnostic too, to remove those unnecessary words? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D150875/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D150875 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
