rnk added a comment. In D116599#3221724 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D116599#3221724>, @nikic wrote:
> LG from my side, but I'd like a second opinion for the "require LLVMContext > in AttrBuilder" part of the change, as that's the main API impact. I think every non-toy frontend for LLVM probably uses the AttrBuilder API to construct attributes, so it's a pretty broad impact. However, I don't see a good way around it, and I think the improvements to string attribute handling are worth taking the API break. I will say that the Google was recently affected by the opaque pointer IRBuilder API removal (rG89eb85ac6ea <https://reviews.llvm.org/rG89eb85ac6eab6431ef72ef705d560c72c5ed71f3>), and the ability to pre-migrate code to the new API was very valuable. At least in our usage, where we progressively pick new LLVM versions, it would be helpful to land a no-op AttrBuilder constructor that takes and ignores an LLVMContext. I don't know how common that usage model is for others. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D116599/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D116599 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
