MyDeveloperDay added a comment. In D61281#1488022 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61281#1488022>, @RKSimon wrote:
> In D61281#1485833 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61281#1485833>, @MyDeveloperDay > wrote: > > > Did this cause some issue? Does this fix something if so can we add a test, > > because maybe the line isn't needed > > > > I would think we'd want to keep this as an identifier. we are just treating > > arg? the same as we would arg > > > @MyDeveloperDay didn't you write this code in D58404 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58404>? I did, but I think the correct code is to remove line 249 completely and not to set the token type to the question mark, unless there was an issue which suggested the otherway in which case it should be added as a test, but I think something like PVS-Studio was used to detect this as an issue but then actually the wrong assumption is being made as to what was intended. (which is more dangerous than the self assignment in the first place) Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D61281/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D61281 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
