aaronpuchert added a comment. In D101566#2730746 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D101566#2730746>, @dblaikie wrote:
> Out of curiosity - have you tried it & measured any significant > improvement/value in build times/sizes/etc? No, I fear that would take too much time. (Not so much the benchmarking, but making a number of fixes that can be expected to make a dent.) > This doesn't sound especially compelling for a warning (& still seems pretty > much not what the original weak-vtables warning was intending to do for > templates - and an inversion of the weak-template-vtables (& so I think, if > we are going to have this new thing as a warning, it should have a different > name and the existing name should be removed)). > > I still really think the best thing is to delete the existing > weak-template-vtables warning entirely. I still don't understand the difference. You can of course argue that explicit instantiations are still weak, but I'd be curious why anyone would care about that. What is the reason behind `-Wweak-vtables` if not compile time or build size reductions? I can just guess, because the original bug 6116 <https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6116> doesn't state a reason. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D101566/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D101566 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
