AaronBallman 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. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/196989 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
