AaronBallman wrote: > > So the changes needed to move this patch forward are to only perform the > > attribute check when we're checking for a valid redefinition, not type > > compatibility in general. A follow-up to improve upon this can do the > > layout check when looking for compatibility. Alternatively (or as another > > follow-up), we can implement the case-by-case basis logic. > > Does that match your understanding @jyknight? > > Ping on this @jyknight
Another ping (if no response by mid-week, I'll probably land the changes as-is and address concerns post-commit). https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/132939 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
