[cfe-commits] r60900 - in /cfe/trunk: include/clang/Parse/Ownership.h

[steve naroff]

On Dec 13, 2008, at 1:51 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:

> On Dec 13, 2008, at 5:07 AM, Sebastian Redl wrote:
>>>        return *this = moving::ASTResultMover<Destroyer>(x);
>>>     }
>>>  private:
>>> #endif
>>>
>> Yes, this is what my idea was. But I'll check the volatile idea  
>> first.
>> It's less intrusive.
>>
>> Unless it's OK with Chris to switch to compiling with /Za.
>
> I don't really understand all the issues around /Za, and don't really
> have an opinion.
>

Hey Chris,

I have one minor objection. Up until now, we've avoided using any  
"special" (i.e. non-standard) compiler switches. In general, non- 
standard options don't get as much exercise and may be more buggy.  
Since I'm not that plugged into the MS developer community, I have no  
idea how many developers use this switch (or if it could introduce any  
instability).

I have another higher level (philosophical?) concern about the "magic"  
that's being added. In the "early days" of clang, Chris and I thought  
it was important to avoid any exotic C++ usage/idioms. The rationale  
was two-fold:

(1) we didn't want to require clang developers have a "PhD in C++".
(2) we wanted to simplify the port effort.

That said, I'm a bit concerned about the complexity of the "moving"  
namespace. Since I'm not a C++ language lawyer, some of this stuff  
makes my head spin:-) Hopefully it's like llvm's isa/dyn_cast support,  
which are very useful/powerful abstractions (where developers don't  
need to know *how* they are implemented).

Nevertheless, I trust we will end up in the right place...I just  
wanted to voice a minor/related concern.

snaroff

> -Chris
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits