Szelethus added a comment. In D75356#1909610 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D75356#1909610>, @balazske wrote:
> The D75682 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D75682> is the one that should be used > now, If this patch is supposed to be a followup to D75682 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D75682>, could you please mark it as such? I find these revisions difficult to navigate. > I have "mirrored" all 3 changes in this stack to the new series in D75682 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/D75682>. Probably it is possible to reuse these > revisions instead but I do not know if it will not confuse phabricator > somehow (and how phabricator behaves in such "tricky" cases, there is not a > usable documentation for it). Since this is the patch where we held the discussion about error states, I think it would be better for this revision land first, that would also solve the problem of inlines being all over the place. It doesn't really matter whether we're introducing error states first through `feof` and `ferror`, or the admittedly quirky `fseek`. WDYT? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D75356/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D75356 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
