rsmith added a comment. Thanks, you've addressed my comments to my satisfaction. (Not approving as I've not done a detailed review of the implementation, only of the approach, but it looks like your review with @pcc is nearly complete.)
In D54604#1330356 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D54604#1330356>, @jfb wrote: > In D54604#1327893 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D54604#1327893>, @rsmith wrote: > > > For the record: I'm OK with this direction. (I somewhat prefer removing the > > `-enable-long-wordy-thing` option and instead automatically disabling the > > `zero` option for clang release builds, but I'm OK with either approach.) > > > I'm inclined to go with what @kcc wants, because I want the data he'll > gather. For my own use, I don't really care. One thing I could do: check > `__DATE__` and generate a warning if it's above a certain value and `zero` is > used? i.e. check the date at which the compiler was compiled (not when it's > used!) and error out if it was compiled after a certain point in time? I'm > throwing out options that could makes folks more comfortable with `zero`... If you want to go there, I'd be OK with that. I don't personally think it's necessary. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D54604/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D54604 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
