rapidsna wrote: > Yeah, this was my thinking as well; basically, `__counted_by` would actually > be involved in all of those cases because it's providing more information > which the type system should be free to use, so I was expecting us to treat > it like `char (*)[__counted_by(n)]`. > > If we don't go that route, then I agree the diagnostic in the PR makes sense. > So maybe this is a temporary diagnostic while research is done to see whether > we can make use of the extra type information?
@AaronBallman Yes! That sounds good to me. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/206760 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
