erichkeane added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D35701#816678, @t.p.northover wrote:
> > I tended to keep function definitions in the class declaration unless it > > caused additional includes to be necessary. > > Was that for implementation simplicity, or part of some cunning design goal? > A lot of these pairs look pretty header-heavy to me (especially given that > we're overriding virtual functions so inlining is mostly impossible). No cunning design goal. Mostly just trying to keep the implementation time as low as possible, so that I don't get hit by a need to manually rebase next time someone makes a change here. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D35701#816680, @krytarowski wrote: > Bitrig has to be eliminated - it's dead upstream and will be removed from > LLVM. (confirmed from ex developers, nobody needs it any more) If no one has an objection, I can definitely remove that OS target and all references to it. Is that your encouragement here? https://reviews.llvm.org/D35701 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
