HazardyKnusperkeks wrote: > Also, it would obsolete #212856, which caused the regression in #222132.
The regression #222132 would be fixed with #226587, and that does not directly touch the star amp logic, but makes sure we parse e.g. the lambda the same, whether it is a top level lambda or inside a function, that is in my view a good thing, instead of just annotating it correctly by accident. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/220080 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
