phosek added a comment. I understand the concerns and I apologize if my LGTM came out as disrespectful, but there has been an issue <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/63170> reported with the original change over two days ago, including a reproducer, and given given that this issue is affecting `clang-format` users, I think it's entirely reasonable to go ahead and revert the change in accordance with the Patch reversion policy <https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#patch-reversion-policy>, and then take as much time as needed to address issue rather than trying to rush a fix forward. In fact, I'd argue that both 4b9764959dc4b8783e18747c1742ab164e4bc4ee <https://reviews.llvm.org/rG4b9764959dc4b8783e18747c1742ab164e4bc4ee> and d2627cf88d2553a4c2e850430bdb908a4b7d2e52 <https://reviews.llvm.org/rGd2627cf88d2553a4c2e850430bdb908a4b7d2e52> should have been reverted right away immediately after the issue was reported without any need for code review as is customary in LLVM.
Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D152473/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D152473 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
