erichkeane wrote: > > > Why should this live upstream if it basically only benefits a single > > > downstream? > > > > > > This is a fair question, my intuition was that if the need came up multiple > > times independently, it might be worth to have it upstream. But it is also > > fair to wait until there is an actual upstream user, or multiple downstream > > users. I am OK with closing this and keep it downstream until either of > > those happens. The only risk is downstream users diverging, which is > > something we can always deal with during the RFC process before something > > is upstreamed. > > My (slight) preference is to keep this in the downstream until we have a need > upstream (or multiple downstreams need it). WDYT @erichkeane?
I'm incredibly on the fence here. We DO have a clang-tidy pass that actually consumes this it looks (`bugprone-no-escape`), so there is potential value here. Additionally, AST matcher folks might find this change valuable. Seeing as the REST of it is in the CFE, I can squint and see value to having it upstream. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/117344 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
