EricWF added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28785#651156, @EricWF wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28785#650101, @compnerd wrote: > > > While I love this direction (the original version really was an > > unintelligible pile of code), I really think that this change may be taking > > on too much. Why not split it up first and do nothing else. We could do > > the MS ABI implementation in a subsequent change. This would improve the > > code and would not be gated on the MS ABI changes. > > > I agree this review is taking on too much, it started out much smaller and I > tried to avoid expanding it, but in the end I had three options: > > A) Regress and remove all support for MSVC, this would break the windows > build. (at least in `exception.cpp` and `new.cpp`). > B) Implement incorrect versions of `support/runtime/<header>_msvc.ipp` > based on w/e we currently have, just to keep Windows building. > C) Implement correct versions of `support/runtime/<header>_msvc.ipp`. > > I choose (C) since I didn't want to regress Windows, or spend time > implementing incorrect `<header>_msvc.ipp` versions. > However I'm willing to try and shrink this down if you think that would be > better. That's dumb, and I'm dumb. I should be perfectly capable of breaking this down into smaller pieces https://reviews.llvm.org/D28785 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
