ChuanqiXu abandoned this revision. ChuanqiXu added a comment. In D134267#3876071 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D134267#3876071>, @dblaikie wrote:
> I'm getting a bit exhausted with all the words involved here & not sure how > to simplify/clarify this. > > If @ben.boeckel has particular use cases, it might be easier for him to be > here discussing them so we can discuss the tradeoffs directly rather than > through intermediaries. Agreed. > I think the choices of flags, even when they represent relatively minor work > on the compiler side, are important in terms of how they shape the > environment the compiler exists in. I have reservations about implementing > the libCody and the scanner-based solutions (let alone also caching based > solutions) - but that ship's probably already sailed in terms of it's > implemented in GCC and build2 is using it. (sort of like open source software > - we implement things for compatibility (like LGPL) but when we're the ones > innovating/creating new things we can and should be more cautious/possibly > more prescriptive to avoid creating more diversity/divergence than is > necessary) > > Please separate this work into isolated patches & we can discuss them > separately. I think this review might be best to abandon as the subject > line/description's out of synch and there's been a /lot/ of discussion going > in a lot of directions such that it'd be hard to understand the > conclusions/focus of this review at this point. Yeah, I agree this thread is complex enough. I'll try to split the patches. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D134267/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D134267 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
