mstorsjo added a comment. In D132916#3781108 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D132916#3781108>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D132916#3773791 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D132916#3773791>, @mstorsjo > wrote: > >> @efriedma Does this look like what you had in mind; does it seem reasonable >> to @aaron.ballman? > > This seems reasonable to me, but I leave it to @efriedma and @rjmccall for > the final sign-off. This looks to be NFC, or have I missed something? (If it > is NFC, you should add that to the title, and if it's not NFC, is there test > coverage that can be added?) There's no observable change in upstream llvm-project/clang, but it is a functional change for downstreams with other vendor patches applied. So I'm a bit undecided whether it should be marked that or not; you're certainly right about the point that a patch either is NFC or should have test changes though... Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D132916/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D132916 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
