vgvassilev wrote: > Personally I feel this patch is good and the testing result from our workload > shows it is good too. But it looks like the performance testing results from > google @zygoloid @ilya-biryukov is not good. So maybe we need to wait for > landing this. (It will be great if @ilya-biryukov would like to test again)
Thanks for putting this up. I was planning to do so, however, locally I got: ``` Clang :: CXX/module/basic/basic.link/p2.cppm Clang :: Driver/clang_f_opts.c Clang :: Driver/darwin-header-search-libcxx.cpp Clang :: Index/crash-recovery-modules.m Clang :: Modules/ExtDebugInfo.cpp Clang :: Modules/cxx-templates.cpp Clang :: Modules/odr_hash.cpp Clang :: Modules/using-directive-redecl.cpp Clang :: Modules/using-directive.cpp Clang :: PCH/chain-late-anonymous-namespace.cpp Clang :: PCH/cxx-namespaces.cpp Clang :: PCH/namespaces.cpp ``` I believe some tests require just adjusting the reference files, but others may need some debugging. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83108 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
