aaron.ballman added a comment. In D67140#1658969 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D67140#1658969>, @gribozavr wrote:
> In D67140#1658365 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D67140#1658365>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > > > Ah, good to know! That reduces my concern, but doesn't negate it. AFAIK, we > > haven't changed the interface such that it requires code changes rather > > than just a recompile in recent history, so this is a bit novel. > > > I think API changes happen all the time. At Google, we are integrating > upstream LLVM and Clang changes into our internal codebase daily. We have a > lot of internal ClangTidy checkers. Fixing up all our internal code to keep > with upstream changes is a full time job for one engineer (but it is a > rotation). I think this sort of backs up the point I was making. It requires an FTE to keep up with the breaks already. I'm worried about the folks who don't have the same resources that Google has. Where you get a new version of Clang every N months (rather than tracking ToT) and it's a scramble to make everything work again with the newest version, which delays adopting the newest Clang version until one lucky developer fixes all the checks. API changes happen all the time, but rarely do they break *everything* for so little gain. I'm not asking for API stability guarantees, but we should still recognize that not everyone has Google's resources for keeping things working. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D67140/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D67140 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
