jhuber6 accepted this revision. jhuber6 added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
In D159256#4630915 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D159256#4630915>, @jmmartinez wrote: > In D159256#4630876 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D159256#4630876>, @jhuber6 wrote: > >> In D159256#4630410 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D159256#4630410>, @jmmartinez >> wrote: >> >>> @jhuber6 I was wondering if there is a reason you kept 3 versions of >>> `mergeDefaultFunctionDefinitionAttributes` in >>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D152391 ? >> >> I believe it's because one was a freestanding function, the other was a >> member function, and the last was a common implementation. > > Would it be ok if I keep only one? It seems that the member function is not > used (I was not sure if there was some external code using it). > > If not, I can also keep just 2 versions (the freestanding function and the > member function), move the implementation to the freestanding one, and drop > the static function since it is redundant. Yeah I think I noticed that when I was doing the patch but I just left it because I figured it would be less disruptive. It should be fine since I'm not aware of any other users. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D159256/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D159256 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
