lichray added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39284#906899, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> We typically diagnose vendor extensions to the language, and I think we > should apply that consistently. Otherwise, your code will compile fine in > Clang with warning levels cranked all the way up and then fail to compile on > every other compiler, which does not do our users any good. I'll let Richard > have the final say for this, but my preference is that this is diagnosed as > an extension (at least in pedantic mode). I think we don't have a practice to issue diagnosis for a change that is basically racing with the standard. First, if we issue a diagnosis now, there is a chance for the (coming) proposal to be accepted before we making a release from trunk; second, users are supposed to be cautious using latest `-std=` in general, as there might be coming fixes. In addition, this change, most of the time, requires the users to opt-in by providing conversion operators, so users are expected to be intentionally trying it out rather than accidentally running into a situation that you describe. But anyway, ping @rsmith? https://reviews.llvm.org/D39284 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
