sidorovd added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52658#1252744, @Anastasia wrote:
> Does it mean we should close https://reviews.llvm.org/D32896? Yes In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52658#1252744, @Anastasia wrote: > Would it make sense to keep this value as Clang implementation and if vendors > need to change this they can `undef` it and redefine a new value. Would this > work? This would work, but the macro isn't existing in the spec and while there already is implementation defined function 'is_valid_reserve_id()' I don't see any reason for PIPE_RESERVE_ID_VALID_BIT to be defined in the header. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D52658 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
