On Dec 13, 2008, at 1:51 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Dec 13, 2008, at 5:07 AM, Sebastian Redl wrote: >>> return *this = moving::ASTResultMover<Destroyer>(x); >>> } >>> private: >>> #endif >>> >> Yes, this is what my idea was. But I'll check the volatile idea >> first. >> It's less intrusive. >> >> Unless it's OK with Chris to switch to compiling with /Za. > > I don't really understand all the issues around /Za, and don't really > have an opinion. >
Hey Chris, I have one minor objection. Up until now, we've avoided using any "special" (i.e. non-standard) compiler switches. In general, non- standard options don't get as much exercise and may be more buggy. Since I'm not that plugged into the MS developer community, I have no idea how many developers use this switch (or if it could introduce any instability). I have another higher level (philosophical?) concern about the "magic" that's being added. In the "early days" of clang, Chris and I thought it was important to avoid any exotic C++ usage/idioms. The rationale was two-fold: (1) we didn't want to require clang developers have a "PhD in C++". (2) we wanted to simplify the port effort. That said, I'm a bit concerned about the complexity of the "moving" namespace. Since I'm not a C++ language lawyer, some of this stuff makes my head spin:-) Hopefully it's like llvm's isa/dyn_cast support, which are very useful/powerful abstractions (where developers don't need to know *how* they are implemented). Nevertheless, I trust we will end up in the right place...I just wanted to voice a minor/related concern. snaroff > -Chris > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
