On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:52 AM, Aaron Ballman <aa...@aaronballman.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Andrey Bokhanko > <andreybokha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Now I'm completely confused... :-) > > > > Can we rely that this MS engineer has enough authority to declare this > > to be a bug? > > He's on the compiler team, so yes. > > > And more importantly -- is MS willing to fix the [supposed] bug in > > future MSVC compilers? I frankly don't think so... > > We can only guess what Microsoft is going to do and when. However, we > do not aim to be bug for bug compatible with MSVC unless there's very > good reason to do so, and I've yet to see any justification to warrant > that for this bug. Further, there's additional burden. If Microsoft > fixes this bug, are we going to then update our code to only support > it in a certain range of -fms-compatibility-version values? Or are we > going to have a compatibility hack that Microsoft doesn't have? etc. > Here is my thinking: If there is code out there in a wild that depends on this, then we should take this patch. Once Microsoft releases a compiler which supports the conforming behavior, we should limit it's scope to a specific range of versions. We've done this in the past for things like _Atomic. > > > Either way, it's up to Reid to decide what to do. Reid? > > It is not solely up to Reid to decide what to do. It's up to us as a > community as to what we want to support and maintain long-term and > that requires some amount of consensus. Also, Reid is not the only > Windows maintainer. ;-) > > ~Aaron >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
