> Make -fms-compatibility imply -fms-extensions. Fixes PR11204. Is this the right way to go? I could see extensions implying compatibility (do we do this already? or is it intentional that one might use ms-extensions without ms-compatibly?) but the other way around seems less obvious to me. I may need to be able to compile with MSVC (compatibility) but I don't want to dig a deeper hole (extensions). I suppose if I cared I just wouldn't enable either & check my code on both compilers & use the subset of functionality across them, is that the line of reasoning? (though that doesn't quite cover cases where the same code compiles in both compilers but behaves differently due to lookup, etc).
And if extensions => compatibility and compatibility => extensions, why have two flags? - David _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
