vsapsai wrote: > @vsapsai I guess, it's a good sign? :) Do you see how our use case can be > supported by a trivial and low-risk forward fix? If not, I'd insist on a > revert before we can figure out the way forward. We can run this sort of a > change through our testing before it relands, and ensure it doesn't break our > code. We did this on multiple occasions before (especially for changes that > touch Clang header modules).
I still don't understand what is your use case. My [very ungenerous] interpretation is "to access a file you were told not to access without triggering any tripwires". And I'm not sure such a use case is worth supporting. But I understand that is only my own interpretation which can be incorrect. And I want to believe you have a better use case that doesn't rely on accessing private headers. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/138227 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
