[RFC] Proposal: Clang C/C++ language working group

I’d like to participate as well.

Thanks for starting this up. I am interested in joining along with @steven-wan-yu and potentially someone else.

I’d like to join.

I’d like to participate.

Thanks all for the feedback, it looks like there is good support for a Clang C/C++ language working group. I’ll create a new thread in the next day or two to vote on an initial meeting time, and will create a skeleton agenda/calendar.

@jrheng99, do you know if there would be interest in driving a GSoC project through this group on improving timing traces for Clang compile-time performance? In particular, I believe more information about the “user source” whose processing is contributing to the time spent would be useful. At this time, I think the crash diagnostic stack trace contexts may serve as a model for attributing time spent to the user source.

I set up a poll for the first meeting Poll: Meeting time for Clang C/C++ Language Working Group. Please indicate your preferred meeting time there. Thanks!

The initial meeting for the WG has been set to Wednesday March 2 at 11am-12pm ET. I’ve got full details here Poll: Meeting time for Clang C/C++ Language Working Group - #4 by jrheng99

1 Like

Reminder to all that our second WG meeting is scheduled for Wednesday March 16 at 11am-12pm ET.

I’ve also created created this week’s agenda WG agenda/minutes doc. Please let me know if anyone would like to add any topics.

Reminder to all that our second WG meeting is scheduled for Wednesday April 6 at 11am-12pm ET

Clang C/C++ Language Working Group Meeting
Wednesday, April 6 · 11:00am – 12:00pm
Google Meet joining info
Video call link: https://meet.google.com/ifi-uqto-kjw

I’ve also created created this week’s agenda WG agenda/minutes doc . Please let me know if anyone would like to add any topics.

I’m interested in these topics, and don’t currently have time to commit to working on language features (but may be able to in future).
Is it OK to join and listen in?

2 Likes

Absolutely, we’d love to have you. However, unless you want to be tagged on a bunch of reviews, you may want to separately decide whether to be in the clang-language-wg phabricator group or not.

1 Like

Hi All - I haven’t been very active in the past four years or so - but this group caught my eye (exciting!) and with an in-person standards meeting on the horizon, i’m feeling a little nostalgic and was going to test the llvm-waters again - maybe try and dust some of the rust off to see if I can still swim and keep up …

With that disclosure, I was thinking of tackling the ‘deducing this’ proposal - is anyone working on it?

Also - I have a patch that aims to make lambda captures more standards compliant and fix a PR- and i could use some feedback on that too:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25627
https://reviews.llvm.org/D92733

Would appreciate your thoughts.

thanks!

Hi @faisalv, I would recommend adding the subscriber clang-language-wg to your review to get the attention of the members of the WG. Hope you can join the next call on April 20!

My apologies for the short notice, but we need to cancel the April 20 meeting due to unforeseen circumstances. We’ll reconvene on May 4.

We will be canceling the May 18 meeting due to conflicts. We will pick it up next time. See everyone then!

The Clang C/C++ language WG meeting is on for Wednesday June 1 at 11am EST. I’m a bit light on content Clang C/C++ Language Working Group Meetings - Google Docs. Let me know if anyone has any topics they want to discuss, or if there any Code Reviews we want to conduct.

I received a request to cover an update on consteval issue consteval function not allowed in default argument to constexpr constructor · Issue #48230 · llvm/llvm-project · GitHub. @ChuanqiXu I see that you just took ownership of the issue, I hope you’re able to join the discussion.

Hi, I am not able to join the meeting due to personal reasons.

And here is the story: I meet a duplicate problem and file an issue for it (Clang failed to use std::source_location::current() in default argument · Issue #55769 · llvm/llvm-project · GitHub). I didn’t know it is duplicate that time and I took some time to fix it. Then @jyknight mentioned that there is already one issue for it and I assigned it to myself immediately due to I’ve just finished a solution. However, in the later of the day, I found there is already one solution in ⚙ D119646 [clang] Allow consteval functions in default arguments and I confirmed his solution is better than mine. So it is just a misunderstanding. And I think the problem should have been fixed. Given @lzaron is not active recently. I think we could commit the patch in the next week (The authority should be him, of course).

Hope this helpful.
Thanks

The Clang C/C++ language WG meeting is on for Wednesday June 15 at 11am EST. Let me know if any new topics need to be added Clang C/C++ Language Working Group Meetings - Google Docs . Also open for any Code Reviews we want to conduct.