[scottlamb]

> What we get with LLVM is a large number of people tossing in the things that help the handful of workloads they are currently working on, with limited oversight regarding how that’s impacting compile-time for everyone else. So the compiler gets slower and slower, the compiled code doesn’t get much faster, and overall the compiler grows and grows in complexity.

Is that how you'd describe runtime "speedups in the 10-15% range in optimized builds" vs compile-time "2.2x slower in O2/O3"? Because as a compiler user it sounds totally worth it to me. A lot more CPU time goes into running my code than into compiling it. That's true both when I write large distributed systems software (which occupies many machines) and when I write small-scale software (that runs on less powerful machines than I use for development).

Sure, "15% slower in debug builds" kind of sucks, I might have hoped for more improvement over 10.5 years, maybe complexity did snowball (I'm not a LLVM developer so I wouldn't know), and maybe there were a bunch of changes that didn't carry their weight. I'd still take LLVM 11 over LLVM 2.7 overall.