ldionne added a comment. In D130867#3781429 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D130867#3781429>, @cjdb wrote:
> I had not realised that libc++ was listed as a reviewer. The change does have an impact on libc++, so I think it makes sense to look at it not only from the compiler perspective, but from the whole clang/libc++ ecosystem's perspective. > I am going to abandon this revision, since I only wish to interact with that > community when it is both business-critical and unavoidable. While you're not saying so explicitly, you seem to be implying some sort of fault on libc++ here, which I don't understand. I am trying to engage in a genuine and productive discussion. I'm asking questions to clarify my understanding of your benchmarks, raising IMO reasonable technical concerns with the patch, and doing so politely unless I missed something. I'm not saying we should not move forward with the patch -- there must be a reason why you put in all this effort into it. I'm merely raising concerns because no, this isn't a black-and-white situation -- there is a tradeoff with this patch. I don't know whether your comment targets me personally or the libc++ community as a whole, but either way, honestly this sort of "I won't talk to you" behavior is kind of hurtful. If you feel there's something wrong with the libc++ community or with me, the LLVM Foundation has channels to remediate to that, and I encourage you (or anyone feeling bad about any part of LLVM) to use them. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D130867/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D130867 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
