AaronBallman wrote: > Thanks for reaching out guys. > > I recall approving the original PR on phab. I can re-review if needed. This > work was approved to land before, so personally I think it might be overkill > to RFC it on discourse again but I am not certain of the right process to > take. > > > Added @plotfi as a reviewer; one drive-by question is whether adding a new > > LLVM tool like this requires an RFC to be posted to Discourse or not > > (https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#introducing-new-components-into-llvm). > > (I don't have any opinions on the tool; just trying to help the review > > move along.)
I don't have strong opinions on whether this should have an RFC or not, but the original review didn't come with an RFC that I could find either. Given that there are some concerns about what the name of the tool is, I weakly lean towards running an RFC just to make sure everyone is comfortable with the tool. But again, I don't insist, it's just a drive-by comment because I happened to notice the PR. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68176 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
