HaohaiWen wrote: > For my money this was merged prematurely. There are still outstanding > concerns about whether this transform is desirable, as well there is an > outstanding comment about the implementation itself. I'm fairly agnostic > about this code getting in, but I think it should be reverted until some > degree of consensus is reached. It's painful to have comments/a PR languish > without replies, but don't think the answer is to just push.
Thanks for kindly reminding. I think I've replied the concerns and wait a long time... I thought there should be no problem so I merged it... Hi @nikic, any comments about the reply to your concerns? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68502#issuecomment-1813507499 If you have concerns that this patch is bad for some cases, or you have more suggestions, please let us know and we can improve it. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68502 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
