AaronBallman wrote: > Given that this is for a clang extension and not a conformance issue, I'm > inclined to revert. > > It might make sense to do that, yeah. Either way, we should investigate > what’s going on here. @AaronBallman wdyt?
Definitely worth investigating, unsure whether this is sufficiently disruptive to warrant a revert as opposed to a fix forward. I don't oppose a revert if @nikic would like to see one, but I realize now that we have no wording in our revert policy regarding incremental compile time performance regressions (if it was a huge regression, I think it falls under correctness, but this is a relatively small change in performance and no bots are red as a result either). So if we think this warrants a revert, should we consider updating the policy to more clearly state when to revert for performance reasons? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84983 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
