MaskRay wrote: > maurer: I think their point is that even if you are not changing the hash > scheme, you are proposing breaking compatibility of the identifier with > existing code. Since we don't want to do this many times, if we are breaking > compatibility with existing code, they would like to batch it with another > breaking update so that it doesn't need to be done again. > > (This isn't me reviewing this PR, just trying to clear up some confusion.)
This:) Thanks for the explanation. After my pending lld/MachO change, kcfi will be the only user of the legacy `xxHash64`. I want to remove `xxHash64` from llvm-project. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/121070 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
