aaron.ballman added a comment. In D71199#2265693 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71199#2265693>, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> In D71199#2265692 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71199#2265692>, > @baloghadamsoftware wrote: > >> In D71199#2265594 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71199#2265594>, @lebedev.ri >> wrote: >> >>> So i've just reverted this in rGebf496d805521b53022a351f35854de977fee844 >>> <https://reviews.llvm.org/rGebf496d805521b53022a351f35854de977fee844>. >>> >>> @aaron.ballman @baloghadamsoftware how's QC going on nowadays here? >>> Was this evaluated on anything other than it's tests? >> >> Surely. After I commit a patch, lots of buildbots verify it. They passed so >> far. > > @baloghadamsoftware, i think you understand that wasn't the question. This feedback is a bit terse and not very constructive. FWIW, we don't typically ask patch authors to run their patch over a large corpus of code unless a reviewer expects there to be a performance concern and asks explicitly. Given that this checks constructor bodies, there was no obvious reason to ask for that here. Also, I can't recall a time when we expected a patch reviewer to do that work. I appreciate that you noticed an issue and reverted so we could investigate, but when reporting an issue like this, please try to keep in mind that we're all in the same community trying to make a great product. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71199/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D71199 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
