lebedev.ri added a comment. In D71199#2265692 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71199#2265692>, @baloghadamsoftware wrote:
> In D71199#2265594 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71199#2265594>, @lebedev.ri > wrote: > >> So i've just reverted this in rGebf496d805521b53022a351f35854de977fee844 >> <https://reviews.llvm.org/rGebf496d805521b53022a351f35854de977fee844>. >> >> @aaron.ballman @baloghadamsoftware how's QC going on nowadays here? >> Was this evaluated on anything other than it's tests? > > Surely. After I commit a patch, lots of buildbots verify it. They passed so > far. @baloghadamsoftware, i think you understand that wasn't the question. >> It appears to be either unacceptably slow, or subtly broken, because it >> takes at least 100x time more than all of the other clang-tidy checks >> enabled, and e.g. >> `clang-tidy-12 --checks="-*,cppcoreguidelines-prefer-member-initializer" -p >> . >> /repositories/llvm-project/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstructionCombining.cpp` >> never finishes (minutes and counting). > > I see nothing there that could be slow, thus this is probably some hang. I > will investigate it. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71199/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D71199 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
