yrouban wrote: > Thanks you, @yrouban ! > > > By the way, does this change fix any issue or solve any problem other than > > the irrational design you explained? > > I'm working on an RFC to rework the internals of the options interfaces in > order to make them thread-separated so we can reduce the global state surface > and _hopefully_ **eventually** let tooling (internal and external) run > concurrent LLVM-based tools without having to spawn processes. Of course, > there's no guarantee that the RFC gains traction, but as part of my > prototyping I decided to push out some of the more stylistic changes. Most of > the smaller changes (like this) are not strictly required in the larger > picture, but if people think it improves the quality of the interfaces I > think it's worth considering. 🚀
I proposed this idea in 2018 (https://reviews.llvm.org/D53424, https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-October/127039.html). https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/184581 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
