That said… the behavior of this function is currently weird. Returning zero for success some of the times is not great. After further consideration, we should just apply the fix.
Patch applied in r180177. Thanks for following up on this. On Apr 24, 2013, at 12:20 AM, Ted Kremenek <[email protected]> wrote: > The comments in the PR were to keep the function, so I won't rip it out. > > That said, if there are clients, I'd prefer we change the documentation, not > the behavior of the code itself. > > On Apr 23, 2013, at 11:48 PM, Ted Kremenek <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks Nikola. This PR and patch made me go back and re-evaluate the >> purpose and need for this function. I don't think there are any clients of >> CXCursorSet, so I think I will just remove it entirely. >> >> Thanks for investigating this. >> >> On Apr 22, 2013, at 2:12 AM, Nikola Smiljanic <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I was going through bugizilla when I ran into this one >>> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=10124 Bug and patch look good but I >>> wanted to double check if this is OK to commit and close? >>> >>> CCing Ted since he seems to be the author of the function. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cfe-commits mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
