Anastasia added a comment. In D57464#1462342 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D57464#1462342>, @ebevhan wrote:
> In D57464#1438213 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D57464#1438213>, @Anastasia wrote: > > > > I think I would lean towards the latter since it means less fudging > > > around with a whole bunch of unrelated methods. Do @rjmccall or @rsmith > > > have any further opinions on this? > > > > Ok, I can change the patch to prototype this approach. I might need some > > example test cases though. > > > Alright! > > Just to make sure of something here - are you waiting for me to provide some > example cases? There hasn't been activity here in a while and I was just > wondering if it was because you were waiting for this. Sorry for delay. Examples would be helpful. But I am not blocked on them, I just can't find extra bandwidth at the moment unfortunately and I am not sure I will be able to do this in the time frame of clang9 development. Feel free to pick it up if you have time and I will be happy to review your rework. Otherwise it would have to wait. :( CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D57464/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D57464 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
