[cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] MSVC++ ABI compatibility is not a Windows requirement

[Óscar Fuentes]

Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes:

> As I said up front, it is fine for you to share your opinion about
> what is matter (you're clearly a smart guy and very knowledgeable),
> please just don't turn this into blocking progress that you personally
> aren't interested in or don't value.

I made clear on a paragraph you didn't quote that I respect the freedom
of every developer to work on what he pleases. And, needles to say, I'm
not on a position to block anyone from doing anything.

As already stated, what I'm pursuing with this discussion is

 * To understand why they chose to work on MS C++ ABI compatibility
   instead of other most basic missing features that preclude using
   Clang for serious C++ development. I'll be grateful if anyone
   involved on the MS C++ ABI comments on this (it was already mentioned
   that Wine is interested on that feature, but I don't understand why.)

 * To ensure that everybody knows that supporting the MS C++ ABI is not
   required at all for being a Windows compiler.

OTOH, this comment from you

> You need the technology first, once technology issues are solved,
> legal issues can be tackled. It is certainly true that people within
> Microsoft would love great clang support, perhaps in time the right
> legal agreements can be hammered out.

prompts me to ask if it is right to submit to the mailing lists patches
implementing a feature that is known to be legally "controversial".

I'm very interested on 32bit SEH support. The patent expires in less
than a year and my plan was to work on it for submission around that
time. But your comment makes me think that maybe it is acceptable to
review the patch before the patent expires. In that case I could try to
start working on it sooner.