ychen added a comment. In D126341#3537675 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D126341#3537675>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> Adding the language WG as a reviewer in case others have opinions. > >> The underlying problem is basically wg21.link/cwg362 which has no concensus >> yet. > > According to > https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#362 this was > resolved in CD1 and we track it as being not applicable to us > (https://clang.llvm.org/cxx_dr_status.html#362). (Is our status actually > correct for this?) > >> Will the reviewers be supportive if I make the original cwg362 test case >> work too? > > To me, it depends on what it does to compile times and memory overhead for > the compiler when run on large projects. If the extra tracking is cheap and > doesn't really impact anything, I think it's reasonable to want to match > GCC's behavior. If it turns out this is expensive, I'm less keen on matching > GCC. Thanks for the opinion @aaron.ballman. I think the cost would be low. I'll get back with some numbers. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D126341/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D126341 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
