rjmccall added a comment. In D125919#3554195 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D125919#3554195>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> However, I reverted the changes in this patch in > c745f2ce6c03bc6d1e59cac69cc15923d4400191 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/rGc745f2ce6c03bc6d1e59cac69cc15923d4400191> as I > don't think they're correct. I've got some open questions on the WG14 > reflectors regarding this function type rewriting exercise, but I think my > dropping of the `_Atomic` qualifier is likely wrong in this patch and the > fact that we're losing source fidelity in the AST is definitely an issue. The > subject of https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/39595 was the behavior > of the `_Atomic` specifier in a `_Generic` selection; when I realized we > don't fully implement DR423, I mistakenly connected the issue with the DR. > But now that I no longer think the `_Atomic` qualifier should be dropped as I > was doing, these changes really don't address the issue in `_Generic`. The source fidelity issue seems like it could be solved with `AdjustedType`. What's the issue with `_Generic`? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D125919/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D125919 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
