See https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2021-December/069608.html. We couldn't mark coroutine as done now due to there to critical bugs. And as Aaron suggests, it would be better to give the reason in the docs.
Details
Diff Detail
Unit Tests
Event Timeline
Thanks for this!
clang/www/cxx_status.html | ||
---|---|---|
1202 | Rather than following this approach, it'd be nice to have the information provided directly inline, as done in: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/www/cxx_status.html#L916 | |
1267–1270 | Also, when moving it to be a detail of the current row, I'd drop the (12): from the text. I think we should also add some words to the effect of "This feature was implemented based on the Coroutines TS and requires further analysis to determine what support remains to be added." This should hopefully make it clear that the list of issues found is not exhaustive and that investigative work is still needed. |
clang/www/cxx_status.html | ||
---|---|---|
1267–1270 | The current implementation have some minor differences with coroutines TS already. So I chose the wording Richard gives in the mailing list. I think it is proper. |
LGTM aside from a minor wording fix. Thank you for this!
clang/www/cxx_status.html | ||
---|---|---|
1206–1207 | Fixes typo and grammar but hopefully gets the same point across. |
Rather than following this approach, it'd be nice to have the information provided directly inline, as done in: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/www/cxx_status.html#L916