hazzlim wrote: > > The patch here is pretty big in size, but it seems to only affects the > > remarks, on the other hand it doesn't seem to really fix anything and in > > that case I feel like RC3 might be the wrong time to merge this. Is there a > > huge upside to take this this late in the process? > > Also ping @jroelofs as aarch64 domain expert and @AaronBallman as clang > > maintainer. > > We had 8 release candidates for 18.x and I would _very much_ like to avoid > that happening again, so I think that because we're about to hit rc3 (the > last scheduled rc before we release according to the release schedule posted > at https://llvm.org/) we should only be taking low-risk, high-impact changes > such as fixes to regressions or obviously correct changes. I don't think this > patch qualifies; is there significant risk to not putting this in? (e.g., > does this fix what you would consider to be a stop-ship level issue of some > kind?)
Thank you for taking a look at this PR @AaronBallman. To reiterate points from above, I do think that it is low risk (as it is very opt-in) and high impact in the sense it helps to diagnose code that can incur a fairly significant performance hit. However I appreciate we're almost at rc3 and so understand if you don't think this qualifies for the 19 release at this stage. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/102168 _______________________________________________ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
