nathanchance wrote: > Seems like this should have a release note.
@shafik Thank you for the suggestion, done: 500b8203169d2b11e30251e4ee9135148e2cf90a > There seems to be no test coverage being added for the `PRI*` and `SCN*` > macros? @hubert-reinterpretcast Do you have a suggestion on where and what I should test with regard to those? I am failing to find some existing tests for those macros. > Ugh no this issue is even more obnoxious because the kernel is defining its > own version of an implementation defined type. Because the standard does not > simply make them actually builtin types. Sigh. Either direction of naming is > equally awful. @ojhunt Thanks for taking a look. Yeah, I understand this situation is unfortunate. If we want to bike shed the flag name, I am all ears. I don't really care what we end up with as long as I can use it :) https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/234780 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
