Merged
Conversation
Member
|
Should we also remove the lib bindings added in #15616 in order to revert that change entirely? |
Collaborator
Author
|
I wondered about that. It doesn't hurt to keep them, but I guess we won't use them, so... we shall just revert the merge. |
This reverts commit 8fda88f.
1494ba7 to
0614448
Compare
straight-shoota
approved these changes
Sep 29, 2025
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
It's main feature was the ability to work on every target (unlike the current
@[ThreadLocal]annotation) and to register destructors... but the annotation can be fixed using the EmulatedTLS LLVM option (see #16176), and the destructor is crashing on x86_64-darwin when mixing pthreads, unwind and pcre2 (see #15955).It's an internal type, we don't plan to use it anymore, and #16173 shall replace it.
Let's drop it.Let's revert.