ChuanqiXu added a comment. > Yes, that was the decision at the last time we looked - because removing > decls would degrade this - if we have new information that changes our > preferred design, then fine.
I remember the major reason for the last time to not remove the decls are that the design of AST doesn't support to remove decls. And my current idea is, we can refuse to write the discardable Decls into the BMIs. > One solution is to place the elision behind a flag so that the user can > choose slower compilation with better diagnostics or faster compilation but > maybe harder-to-find errors? I proposed to add a flag. But that was a helper for developers to find if we did anything wrong. I don't want to provide such a flag since on the one hand, there are already many flags and on the other hand, form my user experience, it is not so hard to find the unexported decls. It is really much much more easier than template programming. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D126694/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D126694 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
