[cfe-dev] [PATCH] MS compatibility flag implies delayed parsing

[David Blaikie]

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Ruben Van Boxem
<vanboxem.ruben at gmail.com> wrote:
> Op 15 nov. 2011 20:04 schreef "David Blaikie" <dblaikie at gmail.com> het
> volgende:
>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:49 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Francois Pichet <pichet2000 at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Aaron Ballman
>> >>> <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote:
>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Francois Pichet
>> >>>> <pichet2000 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> This doesn't work.
>> >>>>> Some tests depend on -fno-delayed-template-parsing to exist at the
>> >>>>> driver level.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Good catch!  I've revised the patch so that
>> >>>> -fno-delayed-template-parsing will be honored in the driver.
>> >>>
>> >>> Having option -fno-delayed-template-parsing without
>> >>> -fdelayed-template-parsing doesn't sound right to me.
>> >>> How about we keep it.
>> >
>> > Are you suggesting we keep the flag, but still make it implicitly on
>> > when ms-compatibility is specified?  Or just keep things as they are
>> > today?  I am fine with keeping the flag, but I still think we should
>> > implicitly turn it on for ms-compatibility.
>> >
>> >> Shouldn't those tests that are currently using
>> >> -fno-delayed-template-parsing be modified to use -fms-compatibility or
>> >> pass -fno-delayed-template-parsing via -Xclang? Or are those test case
>> >> enough to justify the existence of -fno-delayed-template-parsing as a
>> >> driver-visible flag?
>> >
>> > I usually figure that if there's a test for it, there's a reason for
>> > it, so I think they do justify the ability to turn off delayed
>> > template parsing explicitly.
>>
>> My best guess, glancing at the tests, is that the switch was used to
>> make the tests portable - probably just because the switch existed and
>> was the smallest change necessary to get the tests to pass across
>> platforms. It doesn't look like there would be a problem with just
>> -fno-ms-compatibility being used entirely for those tests but  I'm
>> open to suggestions.
>>
>> In fact they were pretty much all added in r138942 by Francois:
>>
>> "Enable -fdelayed-template-parsing by default on Win32.
>> I had to force -fno-delayed-template-parsing on some Index tests
>> because delayed template parsing will change the output of some
>> tests."
>>
>> So presumably if we make -fms-compatibility default on in Win32 (which
>> if we haven't already, we probably should if it's going to subsume
>> -fdelayed-template-parsing) then it make sense to just change these
>> all to -fno-ms-compatibility.
>
> Hold your horses! Win32 != borked MSVC headers! There's also GCC for
> windows, and as I don't know what implications the delayed template parsing
> has on the libstdc++/libc++ headers, it's not a good idea to make this a
> default for Win32.

Perhaps you misunderstood - delayed template parsing already is the
default in windows & has been for a couple of months.

- David