yaxunl added a comment. In D114957#3167703 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D114957#3167703>, @arsenm wrote:
> In D114957#3167700 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D114957#3167700>, @arsenm wrote: > >> I think this macro is purely terrible and should not be added (and at least >> should be all caps?). If we can't just hard break users, I would rather just >> leave the builtin signatures broken > > Rather than adding an ad-hoc named macro, could they just directly check the > clang version? For the previous and the next clang release, it can be determined by checking clang version. Problem is that ROCm release is not synch'ed with clang release. So for ROCm release that uses the current clang release, it could have this change or could not, which cannot be determined by checking clang version. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D114957/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D114957 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
