ChuanqiXu abandoned this revision. ChuanqiXu added a comment. In D127187#3650824 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D127187#3650824>, @iains wrote:
> Hi @ChuanqiXu, > I have no comment on the technical content of the patch (it looks reasonable > to me). > > However, I wonder if we should be supplying this option at all because in: > https://eel.is/c++draft/module#reach-2 > note2 says "[Note 2: It is advisable to avoid depending on the reachability > of any additional translation units in programs intending to be portable. — > end note]" > > So by providing the option, we are effectively giving users an easy mechanism > to make non-portable programs (and I'm fairly sure that would mean that they > would not have the same characteristics between clang and GCC with this); > So I'd like to know what (preferably real-world) code motivates the addition > of this option. Oh, I see. In fact, I didn't meet any motivated case before. The motivation of the revision is that we feel like it might be better to add an option in D113545 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D113545>. But now I feel like the option is not good indeed. And this one is relatively easy to implement. So we could re-land this if we find it is useful someday. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D127187/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D127187 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
