dblaikie added a comment. > Admittedly, I focused on changes (of Clang and Polly) like refactoring, > improving comments, minimize difference to upstream (clang-)formatting etc. > during the testing.
Yeah, I was more curious about general purpose/average changes, but anyway. > In D104601#2831951 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D104601#2831951>, @dblaikie > wrote: > >> One of the concerns I'd have, for instance (have you done some broad testing >> of these patches on sizable code bases?) is that it wouldn't surprise me if >> clang had some scalability bugs/issues with very long source lines - so it >> might be necessary to introduce some (arbitrary?) newlines to break up the >> code. Though I'm not sure - no need to do that pre-emptively, but might be >> good to have some data that indicates whether this might be a problem or not. > > I found no such issues during my trials. However, I think the request is > understandable an I would implement it on request. It introduces a new > problem having to determine where no newlines mat be introduced (e.g. within > a #pragma). Yeah, no need to get ahead of that - just something to be aware of/on the look out if this feature ends up in use. One other thing: This wouldn't be usable when using debug info, presumably, because it'd refer to the wrong lines, etc. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D104601/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D104601 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
