gribozavr added a comment. In D67140#1658365 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D67140#1658365>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> Ah, good to know! That reduces my concern, but doesn't negate it. AFAIK, we > haven't changed the interface such that it requires code changes rather than > just a recompile in recent history, so this is a bit novel. I think API changes happen all the time. At Google, we are integrating upstream LLVM and Clang changes into our internal codebase daily. We have a lot of internal ClangTidy checkers. Fixing up all our internal code to keep with upstream changes is a full time job for one engineer (but it is a rotation). > My personal feeling is: by itself, this isn't worth the churn but the fix to > downstream code is pretty easy so I'm not strongly opposed. However, do we > have other "I wish we changed this interface, but that would break the world" > issues we want to tackle in this release for clang-tidy? That might make this > refactoring more worth the pain. I'll think about more stuff to fix. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D67140/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D67140 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
