rjmccall added a comment. In D65256#1601510 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D65256#1601510>, @jordan_rose wrote:
> In D65256#1601509 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D65256#1601509>, @rjmccall wrote: > > > Sorry, am I missing something? Such a union would've been either > > ill-formed or unavailable in ARC (depending on where it was declared) > > before this recent work. > > > Apparently that was not the case if it was in a system header. Instead, Clang > marked the //member// unavailable rather than the entire union. Ah, that's unfortunate. It also just seems like a bug. I guess my questions are whether we're fixing a specific source-compatibility problem here and, if so, whether this is the only reasonable approach for solving it. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D65256/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D65256 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
