hans added a comment. > If we're all using `clang` for the command, we'd all get the same behavior, > right? There's no expectation that `clang` and `cl` behave the same way, > that's what `clang-cl` is for. I guess I don't see why we care about how MSVC > behaves unless passing `-fms-compatibility` or using `clang-cl` as the driver > and so I don't see why MSVC should dictate our behavior. (e.g., using clang > and libc++ on Windows because the programmer doesn't want to use MSVC at all > [except for the C runtime, I suppose] is something I believe we want to > support, and with such a use case, defaulting to what MSVC defaults to seems > surprising to me without other motivation.)
Okay, should we key this off the driver mode then (clang-cl vs clang), or on the `-fms-compatibility` version? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D131465/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D131465 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
