dwblaikie wrote: > > The motivation is as usual IWYU and similar refactoring - to reduce build > > time and probablility of non-related source(s) recompile. > > I'm confused: as far as I know IWYU achieves the opposite of what you're > describing actually: it adds more includes than strictly necessary. (IIUC, > the motivation for IWYU is rather correctness and robustness to refactoring > and changes).
It can do both - it can remove an unused header, and add a used header that might be indirectly depended on. (& can switch an include to a forward declaration - or the opposite (if a forward declaration is used, but a definition is required and is currently provided indirectly through some other #include)) > > Yes, but I actually do not see what part of the mentioned standard' section > > conflicts with the change. Would you please suggest an example where we see > > a situation when applied IWYU approach can contradict with the part of > > Coding Standards? > > I haven't sanity checked your patch: IWYU is just known to historically to > the opposite of what we're trying to do in LLVM (as in: "include strictly the > minimum and rely on forward declarations"), either the tools was updated to > support the LLVM style, or you've been doing a lot of manual work (but then > the PR title is misleading). FWIW, IWYU does do forward declarations ( https://github.com/include-what-you-use/include-what-you-use/blob/master/docs/WhyIWYU.md#why-forward-declare ) https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/102707 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
