erichkeane wrote: > Ooof... you and I kinda 'raced' here: #198871 > > I hadn't realized this existed, and fixed it a different way, and our results > are slightly different, so I think one of us needs to revert. I have a bit of > a preference for MY solution (As I think it handles 'more' cases, though > fails to remove the NYI for the 1 set, plus is a bit less 'special casing') , > but am obviously biased here :) > > @andykaylor : Can you decide which should be reverted? I can do the work to > make sure that the test cases will all pass (currently failing CI) and revert > whichever solution you don't prefer.
I'm still looking at this, and I think my opinion has wavered, and I think this is more 'right' in a few places. I have a patch I'm going to submit in the very near future that should fix up the build issues by updating the test + removing much of what my patch did. Sorry @Lancern for the issues, I didn't realize this existed :/ https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/195537 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
