beanz added a comment. In D67585#1670491 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D67585#1670491>, @mgorny wrote:
> But in that case, we should aim for consistency, i.e. remove the matching > option from LLVM. Yes! I want to do that too. After the mono-repo transition is finalized I think we need to invest time in cleaning up the LLVM build system and removing a bunch of legacy functionality. At the same time I think we should move the system in a new architectural direction. This is why I'm targeting to have the discussions at the Developer Meeting in October, which corresponds with the mono-repo becoming the source of truth. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D67585/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D67585 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
