yronglin wrote: > > Thanks Aaron explaining the reason! and also thank you report this issue. > > > `-Werror` means this is not a breaking change, it's the user getting the > > > behavior they asked for. > > > > > > This is exactly what I was thinking. > > Given that this PR has already been reverted twice, I would like to propose > > posting an RFC to the community—if deemed necessary—in order to gather as > > much feedback as possible. This would also help minimize the impact on > > users, ensuring a smooth transition for them. > > WDYT? > > If the goal is feedback on how disruptive this will be, I think a better > approach would be trying to build a massive corpus of code (like a distro > worth of packages) to see what the fallout will be and go from there. I > suspect an RFC will get quick agreement that we want to strengthen > diagnostics here when possible but without being disruptive, which we already > basically know today; what's unknown is "without being disruptive". That > said, I don't think an RFC is a bad idea either, mostly just that it'll help > to have as much information up front as you can get.
Agree 100%, I have create a RFC. https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-default-on-diagnostics-for-implement-p2843r3-preprocessing-is-never-undefined/90863 I hope someone can point out issues or potential risks in the RFC that we may have overlooked. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/196989 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
