rnk added a comment. In D17444#1393509 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D17444#1393509>, @thakis wrote:
> Given that we already have interposition headers and users already have to > hold the compiler right, does it matter if we have one more interposing > header? I'd say it's one more bit of technical debt that we'll have to figure out how to undo later. I'm OK doing it if @rsmith still feels that we shouldn't do this in the compiler. Also, I suppose this is really actually an -fms-compatibility thing not -fms-extensions because it takes an identifier from outside the implementer's namespace. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D17444/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D17444 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
