aaron.ballman added a comment. In D99005#2860494 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99005#2860494>, @mizvekov wrote:
>> I'd prefer to keep existing code working without requiring users to enable a >> flag, if at all possible (esp because I don't expect the flag to be needed >> forever). That said, I still think it makes sense to temporarily revert this >> while doing that work. > > I'd like to give some time for other stakeholders to give their opinion if > this is not too urgent, specially @Quuxplusone and @rsmith. This makes clang-cl basically unusable for a significant portion of people (enough so that I'm asking for a temporary revert) and I don't think we should continue to leave trunk in a broken state while deciding what to do. Our usual community approach is to revert out changes that cause significant breakage because we always want people (such as downstreams) to be able to track against trunk. That said, based on below, hold off on reversion as I may have misunderstood the fix patch (see below) and that may be the quicker and less disruptive approach. > But thinking of another option, almost as easy as a global revert for this, > we could suppress the effect under -fms-compatibility for now, and then > implement a more targetted fix where we only suppress this when parsing the > STL system headers themselves under fms-compatibility. Ah! I missed that context in the other patch, thank you for this! I'll go comment on the other review so we keep the discussion in one place, but that makes me more comfortable with the approach from that review. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D99005/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D99005 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
