lanza added a comment. > Hmm, I thought we actually just generated a bogus definition for the protocol > when it was forward-declared; really, this is better behavior that I > expected. Regardless, I don't think it's worthwhile to diagnose this more > strongly than a warning because of the history of not doing so.
That's fair! > Not really important for this PR anyway. Was your question answered well > enough to move forward? Yea sure, I'm okay with leaving it as a warning and moving forward and fixing your suggestions. I just wanted to make sure to cover any possible concerns. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D75574/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D75574 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
