inaki-amatria wrote: > This LGTM now when @tarunprabhu is happy, thanks for seeing this through > despite my lengthy comments!
Thank you for the quick review, David! I also appreciate your patience with my lengthy comments. I was so caught up in the fixed-form assumption that I failed to realize that reverting the patch I had intended to undo in the previous PR would introduce a regression on your side. I truly appreciate your time and insights! > This isn't to hold up this patch, but as a separate thought: I wonder if > there's even any reason to have `types::TY_PP_Fortran` and > `types::TY_Fortran`? Do we ever actually treat them differently..? It seems > we always decide whether to preprocess or not based on other criteria As for your separate thought: I agree that this part of the code might benefit from a second look. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/130268 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
