aaron.ballman added a comment. In D107292#2920774 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107292#2920774>, @dblaikie wrote:
> In D107292#2920746 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107292#2920746>, @cjdb wrote: > >> In D107292#2920637 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107292#2920637>, @dblaikie >> wrote: >> >>> Not a huge objection - but minor quandry: What's the motivation for this >>> patch? I don't know of any codebase that encourages/uses the alternative >>> tokens and I wonder if adding more usability to them is a worthwhile >>> investment in clang's codebase complexity, etc. >> >> There are codebases that use them (all of my non-Google, non-LLVM code does, >> for example, and I'm not the sole user: just a loud one who's also in a >> position to patch tooling). > > Ah, any pointers to large open source projects that use this? https://codesearch.isocpp.org/cgi-bin/cgi_ppsearch?q=bitand&search=Search (Searching for 'and' is a bit less useful because of how much it shows up in assembly, comments, etc.) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D107292/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D107292 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
