dexonsmith added a comment. > We use the `-Wc++NN-compat-` prefix on all the other subwarnings of > `-Wc++NN-compat` warnings
Interesting; I thought I saw a counter-example recently, and took that as the rule (although I can't for the life of me remember what it was). `-Wc++NN-compat-mangling` SGTM though. > Just curious, though: what is the motivation for enabling the rest of > `-Wc++1z-compat` but not this part? This seems a lot more serious than the > other warnings in the group. (Regardless, I think this patch is useful for > the opposite: enabling just this one warning without the rest...) A user is recompiling the codebase as a unit so binary compatibility doesn't matter, but language semantics do. https://reviews.llvm.org/D34251 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
