jdenny added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45465#1098710, @rsmith wrote:
> Looks good, thanks.
Thanks.
> It strikes me that this will still lead to inconsistencies. For example, I
> expect this:
>
> struct A { struct B *a, *b; struct B *c, *d; };
>
>
> ... to print as:
>
> struct A {
> struct B *a, *b;
> struct B *c;
> struct B *d;
> };
>
>
> ... where the first two are joined because their type owns a declaration of
> `struct B`, and the second two are not joined because their type does not own
> a declaration (it just has a reference to the already-existing declaration of
> `struct B`). One (somewhat hacky) way to address this would be to compare the
> starting source locations of a sequence of `DeclaratorDecl`s and group them
> if it's the same.
While it would be nice to fix that, I'm not as concerned because, AFAICT, that
doesn't ever change the semantics.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D45465
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
