ilya-biryukov added a comment. In D156247#4542155 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D156247#4542155>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> Given the views expressed on this thread, I think this requires a wider > community discussion to determine whether we want to support this idea or > not, regardless of -cc1 or driver-level option. We should not be adding a > novel language dialect as we're getting ready to cut a release unless the > need and benefits are *very* compelling, and I don't think that's the case > here. We need the time to think about the long-term effects of such a mode, > so I don't think Clang 17 is an appropriate ship vehicle for this change, > especially because Google can carry this patch in your downstream easily > enough. Google cannot do this with a downstream patch as we need this for toolchains that we do not build from the LLVM sources we integrate. If we could do with a local patch, we would have definitely done it. > My recommendation is to start an RFC on Discourse. If the community quickly > and decisively agrees this should land in Clang 17 in the next few days, it > might still be reasonable to make the rc2 cutoff, but I'd leave that decision > to the release managers and it would be contingent on strong libc++ > maintainer agreement to whatever direction we go (because they'll be the most > impacted by this decision). https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-add-a-flag-to-clang-17-to-disable-coroutines-in-c-20 @aaron.ballman could you comment on having a `-cc1` flag without guarantees from libc++ folks that this works (so it imposes no support costs on them)? 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
