SouraVX added a comment.

In D70111#1751981 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D70111#1751981>, @aprantl wrote:

> There are two options here:
>
> - leave the C bindings as is (fine with me)
> - add an overloaded function to the C bindings that has the extra argument 
> (also fine with me).


In my opinon, we should be doing both of these. Off-course Step 1 first and 
subsequently Step 2.
Otherwise consumers using / utilizing C bindings will again try to revert this, 
If we don't do Step 2.
As without an updated binding and backward compaitibilty -- this will break 
things for C-binding users ??


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D70111/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D70111



_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to