AaronBallman wrote: > LGTM with minor nits; however, we still have the open question of whether > this should be a CC1-only option. > > @MaskRay, do you have an opinion on whether this should be exposed via a > Clang driver option (with or without a negative form)?
CC @rnk @zmodem as other folks interested in Windows behaviors. > I think this makes sense to leave as a `-cc1`-only option for now. It's > always easy to promote this to a driver option, but pretty much impossible to > remove once it's in the driver. FWIW, I'm starting to feel pretty strongly about this not being a cc1-only flag. We do not want to condition users to do `-Xclang -some-option` for controlling language dialects. So to me, if this is important enough for users to be able to control explicitly, it should be a driver flag. (The situation where I think a cc1-only flag would be a good idea is if your downstream driver was going to enable this automatically for users so the user doesn't have to do the `-Xclang` dance, but I don't have the impression that's the case here.) I looked through Microsoft's documentation and could not find a `/Zc` or other flag to control this behavior in cl, so I don't think a driver option would require any changes for clang-cl. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/176551 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
