kadircet wrote: > could you please take a look? I’d like to merge some version of this, since > it’s generally useful for TableGen-dependent codebases.
Sorry I don't think the explanations in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/180282#issuecomment-3907319520 are enough from my perspective. This is a big change that'll impact all the people maintaining this code going forward, and adding this extra complexity solely for a small set of users doesn't seem like the right trade-off. Moreover include-cleaner is used by other tools outside of clang-tidy (at least clang-include-cleaner tool itself, clangd), this change is also creating a discrepancy with these workflows. if we really want it, we should make this change in the include-cleaner library itself. But I am still of the stance that these should really be addressed in the generators, there's no easy way for us to properly handle this at a scale (people write all sorts of c++). So all of this being said, I am also just a contributor of LLVM (maybe with slightly more experience) and as a result these are just my thoughts on this PR :) I'd rather convince folks mentioned in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang-tools-extra/Maintainers.rst https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/180282 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
