rjmccall added a comment. In D71650#1790067 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71650#1790067>, @mstorsjo wrote:
> In D71650#1789897 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71650#1789897>, @rjmccall wrote: > > > Wow, that's novel. Please add a comment explaining that this is a compiler > > workaround, but otherwise LGTM. > > > The post-patch form doesn't look that odd to me (and we wouldn't want one > comment for every one of the existing enums that already are outside of the > structs where they are used for bitfield sizes), but do you think a comment > is warranted here on this one? I think having a comment somewhere up there to say clearly that these things are hoisted up there as a workaround for a specific GCC port might help somebody from making this mistake again. It also might not, but certainly not having a comment can't help. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71650/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D71650 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
