aaron.ballman added a comment. In D131465#3810070 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131465#3810070>, @hans wrote:
>> 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? Does `clang-cl` set the `-fms-compatibility` version? If so, then it seems like we'd probably want to key it off `-fms-compatibility`? 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
