androm3da wrote: > > > I'm fine with this change. Not sure if there's a better fix available for > > > this. This change will guard the function definition but the call sites > > > for B0 will not work. Should consider renaming the function too? > > > > > > Yeah - this solution is not as effective as I thought. Renaming should > > work, I'll do that instead. > > Hmm - but renaming breaks existing callers, right? Not sure how to fix this > without introducing breakage.
We could - in addition to the push/pop - create aliases that don't conflict (e.g. lowercase like `b0`). That way, folks can include both headers and nothing breaks ... until they try `B0()`, at which point they can use`b0()` instead. And at some point in the future we could theoretically deprecate the upper case versions. Or not. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/184539 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
