SouraVX added a comment. In D70111#1751981 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D70111#1751981>, @aprantl wrote:
> There are two options here: > > - leave the C bindings as is (fine with me) > - add an overloaded function to the C bindings that has the extra argument > (also fine with me). In my opinon, we should be doing both of these. Off-course Step 1 first and subsequently Step 2. Otherwise consumers using / utilizing C bindings will again try to revert this, If we don't do Step 2. As without an updated binding and backward compaitibilty -- this will break things for C-binding users ?? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D70111/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D70111 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
