cor3ntin added a comment. In D124351#3940888 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D124351#3940888>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> 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. We expect very little, if any, breakage > 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). Agreed, but time is short > 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
