On 16.01.2014 19:04, Reid Kleckner wrote: > I think "full" here is OK. In general, I *want* people to file bugs if > there code compiles with cl and not clang -fms-compatibility, but I agree > there are limits to how compatible we can be. There are some areas where > we can never be compatible, and we'll have to close them with wontfix / > infeasible. Users should be able to understand that.
How are warnings treated there? For example currently Clang ignores dllimport on typedefs and enums without warning with -fms-extensions. Aside from the fact that this, if at all, belongs to -fms-compatibility, the question remains. The original problem that introduced this is on rdar so I don't know what it is. I'd much rather axe that special treatment. And if -fms-compatibility is supposed to be required to compile with WinSDK headers, it would be a shame if these workarounds must always be applied globally. There's already the case with -fdelayed-template-parsing that Clang accepts broken user-code without any notice and bails on certain valid things (like template and constexpr combinations), and it's enabled by default. -Nico _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
