mstorsjo wrote:
> Okay, @mstorsjo @MaskRay, what is the way forward?
I'm totally not authoritative for these things, but...
> Am I right that, as for the user-facing changes, `[[gcc_struct]]` cancelling
> implicit `-mms-bitfilds` on MinGW is fine
Sounds quite fine for me
> and silently ignoring `-m{no-}ms-bitfields` on `windows-msvc` is not?
Silently ignoring options is clearly not good IMO, so either we warn about them
or implement them
> Should we (and if yes, when exactly) disallow `-m{no-,}ms-bitfields`? Should
> the aforementioned `--target=x86_64-pc-windows-msvc -fc++-abi=itanium
> -mms-bitfields` be accepted?
FWIW I wasn't even aware that it was possible to pick a nondefault C++ ABI, so
I don't have a strong opinion on this matter. If it works and doesn't create
inconsistencies, then I don't mind, but I guess the regular Clang maintainers
have more of a final say on that.
> Is it fine to provide `[[gcc_struct]]` on MSVC because of the reasons I
> outlined before?
I would be totally fine with that.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/71148
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
