tinloaf added a comment. In D93986#2518402 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D93986#2518402>, @HazardyKnusperkeks wrote:
> I did not re-accept this, because of the script change. I'm okay with it, but > I never looked really at the script. I think it should be changed afterwards > to error or warn again, but not on this enum. Maybe one could annotate enums > which don't have to be fully documented? Yes, I think that's the best option. I'll take a look at it. I'll probably just introduce a new state to the state machine, `InIgnoredEnum` or something, which does nothing but look for the end of the enum. > That's what I thought, but I got it. > https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#obtaining-commit-access Oh, that's quite a permissive policy! Maybe I'll try to get commit access - but for this first commit, the commit-by-proxy thing is probably a good idea. :) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D93986/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D93986 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
