AaronBallman 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.
I don't see a whole lot of benefit to AST matcher folks, but perhaps I'm missing something? CC @PiotrZSL @HerrCai0907 @5chmidti for opinions from clang-tidy folks on whether `bugprone-no-escape` would want to see these changes or not. 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
