aaron.ballman added a comment. In D66397#1649353 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66397#1649353>, @xbolva00 wrote:
> In D66397#1647455 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66397#1647455>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > > > Adding @rsmith to see if we can make forward progress on this patch again. > > > On the other side, I don't want to waste Richard's time since I dont want to > extend (variables and macros are controversal topic anyway) it more now. I > promised to @jfb to handle (2 ^ 64) - 1 as follow up patch and the promised > patch is here.. It looks like your patch changed the behavior involving macros though, so this isn't just about handling (2 ^ 64) - 1. It's hard to tell due to the way the patch is formatted though. tbh, I would appreciate if you would leave the definition of `diagnoseXorMisusedAsPow()` where it is and add a forward declare of the function earlier in the file. It would make spotting the differences in the function much easier. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D66397/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D66397 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
