================
@@ -155,6 +155,38 @@ class DefaultWarnNoWerror {
}
class DefaultRemark { Severity DefaultSeverity = SEV_Remark; }
+// C++ compatibility warnings.
+multiclass CXXCompat<
+ string message,
+ int std_ver,
+ bit ext_warn = true,
+ string std_ver_override = ""#std_ver> {
+ // 'X is a C++YZ extension'.
+ def compat_pre_cxx#std_ver#_#NAME :
+ Diagnostic<!strconcat(message, " a C++", std_ver_override, "
extension"),
+ CLASS_EXTENSION,
+ !if(ext_warn, SEV_Warning, SEV_Ignored)>,
+ InGroup<!cast<DiagGroup>("CXX"#std_ver)>;
+
+ // 'X is incompatible with C++98' (if std_ver == 11).
+ // 'X is incompatible with C++ standards before C++YZ' (otherwise).
+ def compat_cxx#std_ver#_#NAME :
+ Warning<!if(!eq(std_ver, 11),
+ !strconcat(message, " incompatible with C++98"),
+ !strconcat(message, " incompatible with C++ standards
before C++", std_ver_override))>,
+ InGroup<!cast<DiagGroup>(!if(!eq(std_ver, 11),
+ "CXX98Compat",
+ "CXXPre"#std_ver#"Compat"))>,
+ DefaultIgnore;
+}
+
+multiclass CXX11Compat<string message, bit ext_warn = true> :
CXXCompat<message, 11, ext_warn>;
----------------
AaronBallman wrote:
It would help to have leading comments that say:
```
// Generates compat_cxx11_<diag_name> and compat_pre_cxx11_<diag_name>
diagnostic IDs.
```
so it's more clear what the name of the diagnostic will be.
Note, we usually have a convention that extension warnings are prefixed with
`ext`, warnings are prefixed with `warn`; should we retain that convention?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/132129
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
