aaron.ballman added a comment. In D147626#4316190 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D147626#4316190>, @efriedma wrote:
>> If there's not indications of this being disruptive on non-MSVC-compatible >> targets, then we may still be able to get away with rejecting the extension >> there. > > If we need to have the codepath anyway, there isn't much harm in allowing it > on all targets, I think. There's really only one possible interpretation for > the construct. You would think, except the GCC extension differs based on C vs C++: https://godbolt.org/z/E14Yz37To as does the extension in Clang, but differently than GCC: https://godbolt.org/z/zYznaYPf5 and so we'd also have to dig into solving that if we wanted to keep GCC compatibility behavior. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D147626/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D147626 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
