aaron.ballman added a comment. In D112773#3137338 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D112773#3137338>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> Thank you for diving into those details! I'm now sold on the idea that `any` > with no subjects is dangerous and we will diagnose if the user tries this. So > I think the only thing that needs to happen is a documentation update and > some additional test coverage for this scenario, which I'm happy to take care > of myself since it's orthogonal to these changes. Based on that, this LGTM > as-is. FWIW, I updated the docs and added explicit tests in 3874277f415dca0bb222956983f117a6211c0e39 <https://reviews.llvm.org/rG3874277f415dca0bb222956983f117a6211c0e39>. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D112773/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D112773 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
