vsk added a comment. In D74813#1883241 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74813#1883241>, @alexbdv wrote:
> As for making it default - would rather have this under a flag as hashing the > block contents does have some overhead and I imagine this feature wouldn't be > beneficial in most scenarios. Also, unexpectedly (by default) changing the > name of the function blocks might have a negative impact on some existing > workflows. I agree there is a non-zero compile-time overhead, but I expect it to be very small. Istm the relative cost of adding a flag would be much higher, in terms of added complexity and adoption time. What kind of workflow would this change break? Part of the motivation seems to be that workflows that rely on blocks having stable names are brittle. This seems like it makes things strictly less brittle. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D74813/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D74813 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
