iains added a comment. In D126694#4470261 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D126694#4470261>, @ChuanqiXu wrote:
>> That is clearly a big motivation - I will ask the folks we were talking to >> at WG21 if that is their priority - or maybe they care about language >> isolation etc. > > Yeah, I know the folks in WG21 prefer the language isolation. But you know, > there are many folks who are not in WG21... indeed :) > Oh, the thing I want to say, in this case we have a chance to improve the > compilation speed significantly and the so called diagnose quality became a > blocker for us. Also it is beneficial to remove them out of the BMI to > improve the language isolation feature. Yes, that was the decision at the last time we looked - because removing decls would degrade this - if we have new information that changes our preferred design, then fine. One solution is to place the elision behind a flag so that the user can choose slower compilation with better diagnostics or faster compilation but maybe harder-to-find errors? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D126694/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D126694 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
