erichkeane added a comment. In D150875#4353358 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D150875#4353358>, @rnk wrote:
> Can you expand on the motivation for removing this extension? This doesn't > seem to save a lot of code complexity, and it increases migration costs for > our users. I'd like to have some motivation for putting them through the > trouble of migrating. The motivation is essentially the same motivation for making this a SFINAE error: We are the only of the major compilers with this "extension" (I hesitate to call it that, as I'm not sure this FITS in the 'extension's permitted by standard), and we gave warning last release in the release notes that we'd be doing this. You're right there is no additional code complexity, but there IS standards compliance issues, as well as "do what everyone else does". I WILL say the SFINAE change last release was more significant as a motivation, since it had the ability to change the overload set. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D150875/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D150875 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
