dcci wrote: > Just to clarify, these changes are fairly straightforward and shouldn't > impact any clients.
You can't really make this assumption. Maybe in this case it was true, but in the other case that I mention (relaxing frames eagerly, your assumption was incorrect and we had to adapt BOLT downstream to deal with the functional changes). This is why asking for review is a good practice regardless. > Perhaps there's a way to achieve this goal without potentially causing > unintended breakage through reverts. I do believe code reviews are a good way to provide heads-up. Thanks for your work. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97449 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
