aaron.ballman added a comment. In D153881#4468597 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D153881#4468597>, @nuriamari wrote:
> In D153881#4467127 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D153881#4467127>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> I think it's a bit odd that we'd leave `const` under `-Wdeprecated` but >> separate `constexpr` out into its own warning flag, but I'm also not opposed. > > Would moving both const and constexpr into their own warning flag work? I > don't really see cases where you'd want to disable only one or the other. I think that would work better, yes. >> Can you explain the need a bit more though? I think our belief was that >> silencing this diagnostic was pretty trivial (delete the line in question), >> so we wouldn't need a separate diagnostic group for it. > > In our case we have libraries that are consumed both with say C++14 and > C++17, so we can't just delete them, we've needed to add a standard version > check. Admittedly not a huge change either, but we ran into many occurrences > of this warning trying to adopt the latest Clang. I suppose I don't see the > downside of a little more granular control. Ah, I see now, thank you. Backcompat would be harder without this kind of granular control, so I'm okay with this direction. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D153881/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D153881 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
