On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 07:48:54AM -0700, Jesse Zhang wrote: > Are you expressing a concern against "churning" this part of the code in > reaction to upstream LLVM changes? I'd agree with you in general. But > then the question we need to ask is "will we need to revert this 3 weeks > from now if upstream reverts their changes?", or "we change X to Y now, > will we need to instead change X to Z 3 weeks later?".
My concerns are a mix of all that, because we may finish by doing the same verification work multiple times instead of fixing all existing issues at once. A good thing is that we may be able to conclude rather soon, it looks like LLVM releases a new major version every 3 months or so. > In that frame of > mind, the answer is simply "no" w.r.t this patch: it's removing an > #include that simply has been dead: the upstream change merely exposed > it. The docs claim support for LLVM down to 3.9. Are versions older than 8 fine with your proposed change? > OTOH, is your concern more around "how many more dead #include will LLVM > 11 reveal before September?", I'm open to suggestions. I personally have > a bias to keep things working. This position can have advantages, though it seems to me that we should still wait to see if there are more issues popping up. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
