joker-eph wrote: > The motivation is as usual IWYU and similar refactoring - to reduce build > time and probablility of non-related source(s) recompile.
I'm confused: as far as I know IWYU achieves the opposite of what you're describing actually: it adds more includes than strictly necessary. > Yes, but I actually do not see what part of the mentioned standard' section > conflicts with the change. Would you please suggest an example where we see a > situation when applied IWYU approach can contradict with the part of Coding > Standards? I haven't sanity checked your patch: IWYU is just known to historically to the opposite of what we're trying to do in LLVM (as in: "include strictly the minimum and rely on forward declarations"), either the tools was updated to support the LLVM style, or you've been doing a lot of manual work (but then the PR title is misleading). https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/102707 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
