EricWF added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28785#650101, @compnerd wrote:
> While I love this direction (the original version really was an > unintelligible pile of code), I really think that this change may be taking > on too much. Why not split it up first and do nothing else. We could do the > MS ABI implementation in a subsequent change. This would improve the code > and would not be gated on the MS ABI changes. I agree this review is taking on too much, it started out much smaller and I tried to avoid expanding it, but in the end I had three options: A) Regress and remove all support for MSVC, this would break the windows build. (at least in `exception.cpp` and `new.cpp`). B) Implement incorrect versions of `support/runtime/<header>_msvc.ipp` based on w/e we currently have, just to keep Windows building. C) Implement correct versions of `support/runtime/<header>_msvc.ipp`. I choose (C) since I didn't want to regress Windows, or spend time implementing incorrect `<header>_msvc.ipp` versions. However I'm willing to try and shrink this down if you think that would be better. https://reviews.llvm.org/D28785 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
