andrurogerz wrote: > I think that the clang semantics are technically correct
Yes, agreed. And in case it wasn't clear, this is `clang` behavior and is not specific to `clang-cl`. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/144386 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
