[llvm-dev] "[NFC]" Abuse

[David Jones via llvm-dev]

Outsider comment here: I would consider an API change as NFC only if the
change causes code relying on the previous version of the API to fail
compile. At that point it is obvious that the API has changed and a fix is
needed, although it may not be obvious what that fix needs to be.

On some occasions I have dealt with API changes where compiling my old code
with the new API results in a correctly-compiling program. However, the
resulting application fails to run correctly. This issue is much harder to
track down.


On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 9:26 AM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

>
>
> Yes I am ignoring API users, I am on the same line as Nikita here.
> We don’t have stable APIs (other than the C one), so I for example I may
> change an API that was taking 3 bools to take now a struct parameter
> wrapping the 3 bools instead. I’ll tag it NFC.
>
> On the same line as my comment above, if I review a patch without any
> tests, I will ask if it NFC.
>
> Best,
>
> —
> Mehdi
>
>
>
>>
>> > We could improve the doc maybe?
>> I'm happy to do this legwork but will hold off until something of a
>> consensus
>> emerges.
>>
>> All the Best
>>
>> Luke
>> --
>> Codeplay Software Ltd.
>> Company registered in England and Wales, number: 04567874
>> Registered office: Regent House, 316 Beulah Hill, London, SE19 3HF
>>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210618/c892dd59/attachment.html>