martong added a comment. In D93224#2497632 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D93224#2497632>, @steakhal wrote:
> It seems quite a challenge to hook the `Preprocessor` for all possible > configurations for every `CompilerInvocation`. > The underlying machinery is somewhat complex and spaghetti to me. > > Here is what I suggest: > For now, this expansion is better than the previous was. Macro expansions > will work for the main TU even in any CTU configuration. For the imported > TUs, it will just not expand any macros. > This is a regression in some way, but we should live with that until we > implement it completely. > I think the users would prefer a non-crashing partial implementation to a > crashing one. > > If you think it's an appropriate, I will update the CTU tests to expect no > macro expansion in any imported TU. > And also remove the `XFAIL`. > This way we could still target clang-12. > > Do you think it's acceptable? > @xazax.hun @NoQ Sounds good to me! CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D93224/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D93224 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
