hubert.reinterpretcast added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticLexKinds.td:290
+ "encoding prefix '%0' on an unevaluated string literal has no effect"
+ "%select{| and is incompatible with c++2c}1">,
+ InGroup<DiagGroup<"invalid-unevaluated-string">>;
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:
> > I am not seeing any tests covering C mode.
> >
> > @aaron.ballman, can you confirm that you are okay with the warning when
> > processing C code (and, moreover, the newly-added errors for numeric escape
> > sequences)?
> >
> Good call on C test coverage, thank you for bringing that up!
>
> I think the behavior in C is reasonable, even if it's not mandated by the
> standard. We're going from issuing an error in C to issuing a warning and the
> warning text helpfully omits the C++2c part of the diagnostic, so it seems
> like we're more relaxed in C than we previously were.
>
> Do you have concerns about the behavior in C? (Or are you saying you'd prefer
> this to be an error in C as it was before?)
My question was with respect to the change from the Clang 16 status quo for
numeric escapes introduced by the prior change and carried forward with this
one: https://godbolt.org/z/aneGr1Yfb
```
_Static_assert(1, "\x30"); // error in Clang 17
```
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D156596/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D156596
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
