erichkeane wrote: > I'm getting nitpicky, but there are still unaddressed comments. > > In the interest of landing that soon, we should figure out the following: > > Do we want to keep the document, knowing this is likely to be adopted as a > standard feature? I would rather just link to the paper. > > * We need a changelog entry > > * Do we want to keep the compiler flags knowing this is likely to be > adopted as a language feature? I would prefer checking for c++26 + extension > warnings in older language modes > > * Do we actually want to set the feature test macro now? > > * Why do we have both a feature test macro and `has_cxx_feature` ? > > > I do think landing the PR ahead of Sofia makes perfect sense. This is a large > body of work that Apple is keen on seeing upstreamed. It's a great security > feature, and the paper is past EWG with strong support. > > The next standard meetings will be well ahead of the clang 21 feature freeze, > so we can reassess then if WG21... surprises us. > > @erichkeane @AaronBallman
My opinion is that we implement it as-if it was accepted at plenary. This isn't controversial as far as I can tell, and the core review doesn't seem to have any deal-breakers as far as I can tell. So I agree with your bullet 2. I think we SHOULD set the feature-test-macro, and otherwise just treat this like it was accepted in plenary. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/113510 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
