https://github.com/AaronBallman commented:
Sorry for not responding sooner, but I think this approach makes sense to me. It's basically similar to autoconf where we're checking whether a feature is supported and guarding against it. One concern I have is that someone adding new code may think they need to come up with fallback behavior in case a feature isn't available (e.g., "how do I do this if I don't have `setjmp`?) and it would be nice if we could find a way to make it clear that they are not responsible for coming up with that fallback behavior. (Mostly worried about folks doing a bunch of heavy lifting before submitting a PR only to hear during review "you didn't need to do that, please pull it out because we don't have a way to test it".) https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92677 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
