ChuanqiXu added a comment. In D108696#3018045 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D108696#3018045>, @ldionne wrote:
> This sounds more reasonable to me, however we need to ship `<coroutine>` in > libc++ before we enable this, or else we're going to start suggesting that > users include `<coroutine>` when we don't have it. We couldn't ship '<coroutine>' before we enable this. Otherwise the compiler couldn't find coroutine components defined in `std` namespace. The patch before tries to emit warning for user who including <experimental/coroutine> but it broke the CI system of libcxx. That's the reason that the first commit get reverted. I think the right order may be: - Check in this. - Then check in D109433 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D109433>. - Add a warning to tell people that they should include <coroutine> instead of <experimental/coroutine>. This patch should be simple enough to check in quickly. How do you think about this order? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D108696/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D108696 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
