aaron.ballman added a reviewer: clang-vendors. aaron.ballman added a comment.
In D124351#3940786 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D124351#3940786>, @cor3ntin wrote: > Now that Kona is over, I'm hoping to get back to that in the coming weeks. > Rebasing will be... fun. > I want to make sure we are all okay making that a DR following WG21 guidance, > given that not making it a DR would have potentially large impact on the PR. > Thanks! To me, it depends on how much existing code the DR breaks in practice. If we don't expect it to break a significant body of code (or if the code that breaks will be materially improved as a result of the required changes), then we should implement it as a DR as far back as we can go. If it breaks too much code in practice, then we might not want to implement it as a DR in older language modes. If that situation comes up and it's very hard for us to carry both implementations, then we should go back to WG21 with the further information before the DIS ballot goes out (if possible). I'm adding `clang-vendors` to the review group because of the potential for disruption. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D124351/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D124351 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
