ilya-biryukov wrote: > In general, though, I share the same concern as @vsapsai about leaving this > patch reverted for too long.
I have a concrete proposal to move forward, #141792. I have checked that the failure we've seen in our infrastructure goes away with both changes applied. Given that multiple modules owning the same header seem to be a rare case outside of Google, I hope this also won't cause any breakages and the change acceptable (it's only changing the logic that kicks in when we do have multiple modules for the same header). I really appreciate the steps forward here and would be happy to hop on a video call if necessary. I would still suggest to discuss #141792 first and if that stalls, we can schedule a call. Does that work? Unfortunately, I will be OOO until next Monday and won't be able to respond here. If folks feel there is urgency in relanding this or are happy with merging #141792 without discussion, feel free to do so. (We can definitely live with a local revert for a week). The only major objection that I would raise would be to a path forward that breaks the test case I've added above without a migration path that we can employ. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/138227 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
