bogner added a comment. In D157151#4587522 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D157151#4587522>, @awarzynski wrote:
> This might cause some disruption to downstream consumers of this API and > Options.td. Hopefully, "update_options_td_flags.py" that you've included > should minimise that. I suggest "advertising" it in the summary a bit more. > > LGTM, great work, thank you! > > When landing this, could you send a PSA to Discourse to make folks aware of > what's coming? I am primarily concerned about our downstream users. Good call, and that should help a bit with advertising what to do if a downstream breaks. I'll do so ================ Comment at: llvm/unittests/Option/OptionParsingTest.cpp:18 +#pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wdeprecated-declarations" + ---------------- awarzynski wrote: > Why not just update the test? I'd rather not remove the tests for the old API until we actually remove the API Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D157151/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D157151 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
