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

[Ruben Van Boxem]

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.

Ruben

>
> - David
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20111115/21b03866/attachment.html>