AaronBallman wrote: The Clang Area Team received some feedback concerning the overflow behavior types RFC and PR and whether the work should continue to move forward. The feedback was predominantly focused on:
* Do we have an explicit statement as to how this feature meets all the usual criteria (https://clang.llvm.org/get_involved.html#criteria)? * In particular, do we have concrete evidence that there's a significant user community behind the feature and have they agreed with the design we've got? * Or should this work be more like an incubator project where it's an experiment folks can try out and provide feedback on before we put it into Clang proper? The area team discussed this at our meeting last week (https://docs.google.com/document/d/13-68BCOt8kH5k_56fURBi7u7Ap97Z0EshgkJXDudbJM/edit?usp=sharing) and felt that the RFC is still accepted because the community is interested in a solution in this area, but those technical concerns warrant discussion to make sure that what is produced is likely to succeed and be maintainable. Basically, we don't think the broader community wants to continue the discussion in text format over an RFC, but we think the interested parties certainly should have a discussion. To that end, we've scheduled a discussion. *Today* (Dec 1) at [2pm ET](https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20251201T190000&p1=1241&p2=4747&p3=168&p4=1440) we're meeting at https://meet.google.com/ceg-tjyc-mpz (Sorry for the short notice, holidays, vacations, and life all happened at the same time.) https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/148914 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
