gribozavr2 added a comment. > I am having a hard time to accept "this is how it is implemented in our fork" > as a technical argument. Besides, I am not sure how could the Clang community > benefit about being backward compatible with a specialized fork and thus > making superfluous complications.
Being compatible with Apple's SDKs is quite important for some part of the community. This is similar to Clang implementing GCC and MSVC attributes, for example. Some might call them specialized attributes -- they are non-standard and are certainly not used by every C++ user -- but there exists a sizeable population of downstream consumers that rely on them. Apple's SDKs are in the same class. > This feature could be really valuable, but I'd like to have it landed in a > high quality form which serves the whole community (and the static analyzer > developers). I think that a simple copy-paste of the fork will not do it. I completely agree that the feature should be useful for static analysis. Do compatibility aliases hurt these goals? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D88859/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D88859 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
