rjmccall wrote: > > I think it's worth doing this for non-virtual bases just to avoid needing > > an excessive number of controlling flags, since otherwise I assume people > > might want a staging flag that disables this just for classes with bases. > > I've left this as a TODO, mainly so I can make sure that our internal release > process doesn't catch many more issues than how I tested this. Then I plan on > doing another round of testing without the check on non-virtual bases and > then removing the TODO. We don't need more selective flags than this and I > don't see why other users couldn't just be pointed at an opt-out flag. Is > this strategy okay or would you like to see the non-virtual base check > removed before landing?
I know there's been feedback before from Google folks about having a flag whenever we expand an optimization so that they can more easily check whether the expansion specifically caused a particular regression. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/166276 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
