aaron.ballman added a comment. In D156247#4536034 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D156247#4536034>, @tahonermann wrote:
>> You are absolutely right, -fno-coroutines would totally work for us, had it >> been available. > > Good. Gcc handles `-fcoroutines` and `-fno-coroutines` as I would expect > (https://godbolt.org/z/7zEMd7cdW), so matching gcc behavior makes sense in > any case. I would expect implementation to be quite straight forward, so I > recommend we head in that direction. I think we generally want to avoid "congratulatory" diagnostics unless the language feature is truly surprising to users in practice. e.g., we have `-Wvla` as a diagnostic to tell users when they're using a VLA because of just how often people think `const int i = 12; int array[i];` forms a constant-sized array when it doesn't (and VLAs can have security implications). There's nothing about coroutines that seems like it would surprise users such that they need a diagnostic to tell them they're using the feature. So I don't think this meets the bar for a diagnostic in Clang. That said, I think `-fno-coroutines` should work. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D156247/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D156247 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
