jdenny marked an inline comment as done.
jdenny added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/docs/ClangPlugins.rst:58
ExamplePragmaHandler() : PragmaHandler("example_pragma") { }
- void HandlePragma(Preprocessor &PP, PragmaIntroducerKind Introducer,
+ void HandlePragma(Preprocessor &PP, PragmaIntroducer Introducer,
Token &PragmaTok) {
----------------
lebedev.ri wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > jdenny wrote:
> > > jdenny wrote:
> > > > lebedev.ri wrote:
> > > > > jdenny wrote:
> > > > > > lebedev.ri wrote:
> > > > > > > Hmm.
> > > > > > > This will have effects on out-of-tree plugins that define pragmas.
> > > > > > > I'm not sure how to proceed here, just notify cfe-dev and move on?
> > > > > > We could do something like this in `PragmaHandler`:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > virtual void HandlePragma(Preprocessor &PP, PragmaIntroducerKind
> > > > > > Introducer,
> > > > > > Token &FirstToken) {
> > > > > > llvm_unreachable("deprecated HandlePragma unexpectedly called");
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > virtual void HandlePragma(Preprocessor &PP, PragmaIntroducer
> > > > > > Introducer,
> > > > > > Token &FirstToken) {
> > > > > > HandlePragma(PP, Introducer.Kind, FirstToken);
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The derived class could override either one. Unfortunately, if it
> > > > > > didn't override either, the error is then at run time instead of
> > > > > > compile time as it is now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Whether this is worth it, I don't know. Who's the right person to
> > > > > > answer this question?
> > > > > I think mailing cfe-dev will get this question the most visibility.
> > > > > Though i //think// the solution will be to go with the current patch.
> > > > I tried that at
> > > >
> > > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2019-May/062297.htm
> > > >
> > > > but it's been a week without a response. I'm happy to try again,
> > > > perhaps with a shorter more general email about `PragmaHandler`
> > > > backward compatibility that might catch a different set of eyes. Is it
> > > > worth it, or should we just assume no response so far means no one
> > > > thinks it's an issue? Thanks.
> > > Sorry, copy and paste error. The URL is:
> > >
> > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2019-May/062297.html
> > I don't think we make guarantees about the stability of these APIs and this
> > is a loud break for out-of-tree users rather than a silent behavioral
> > change. I think the approach taken in this patch is fine.
> Indeed, i was waiting a bit of time since that post.
> Since there has been no response..
Thanks, guys! I'll work on pushing soon.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D61643/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D61643
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
