wristow added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20243#433615, @thakis wrote:
> Did you see http://reviews.llvm.org/D19815 ? Does that help? Warren might > have opinions on this. Yes, these are definitely related. Fixing that other problem does //not //also fix the issue here, however the fix here will only work if that other fix is also applied. In my view, that other issue is a fairly overt bug (PR24387) where `#pragma once` is blatantly ignored in a header-file processed for creating a PCH. That can result in incorrect behavior, and always results in a misleading/confusing warning. That issue also is independent of the host environment. Whereas the timestamp issue described here is much more subtle, and it only impacts Windows hosts (due to some problem with the timestamps on the Windows file system). Essentially, the proposed fix here is blocked by that other issue. I should have realized and commented here earlier. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. http://reviews.llvm.org/D20243 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
