I didn’t have a specific use case in mind for it, so no preference either way.
LGTM as well On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 1:05 PM Aaron Ballman via Phabricator < revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > aaron.ballman accepted this revision. > aaron.ballman added a comment. > This revision is now accepted and ready to land. > > LGTM unless @jroelofs has a reason why the code was originally written > that way, but can you add test coverage for it? > > > Repository: > rG LLVM Github Monorepo > > CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION > https://reviews.llvm.org/D81953/new/ > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D81953 > > > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
