ychen added a comment. In D128745#3850667 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128745#3850667>, @hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:
> In D128745#3834435 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128745#3834435>, @ychen wrote: > >> New flag or not, as long as we allow users to use the old behavior, it is >> already fracturing the ecosystem. Do you mean (1) we shouldn't give the user >> the choices or (2) we allow users to use the old behavior but only for a >> few releases and then remove the flag? I think (1) is a little bit harsh but >> I would not say it is disruptive. (2) is more user-friendly. > > (1) has been the default absent information to indicate that the new > behaviour is not ready for deployment (because it would cause widespread > disruption). To consider alternatives would require information about the > nature of the deployment difficulties. Agreed. To all: As a next step, I'll remove the ClangABICompat checks for these DRs (make these DRs effective unconditionally). If we saw proof that these have deployment difficulties. We can (1) re-run the rules with the committee as suggested by @rjmccall; (2) consider alternatives (including reverting these DRs) based on the feedback. Please let me know if you object to this or have any other concerns. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D128745/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D128745 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
