hjl.tools added a comment. In D79617#2045552 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79617#2045552>, @rsmith wrote:
> I would like a specification for this header to be added somewhere. We > shouldn't be implementing random things with no specification. (Suppose > someone claims that our `<cet.h>` is wrong in some way. How would we know > whether they're right?) > > Ideally, I'd also like this header to be installed somewhere where we look > for assembler-with-cpp preprocessing but not for regular compilation; it > doesn't make sense to me to pollute the header namespace for all C and C++ > compilations with a header that is not meaningful in C and C++. But knowing > whether that change is correct depends on having, you know, a specification. <cet.h> from GCC is as close as you can get for a reference implementation/specification. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D79617/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D79617 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
