gamesh411 added a comment. In D89528#2334795 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D89528#2334795>, @martong wrote:
> What is the context here? Did it cause any crash/bug or were you just reading > through the code for a good night sleep? :D Actually I was debugging thru iterator-related code and was making assumptions on the signature of operators. Then I noticed the assymetry of return types in case of operator++ (fundamental types have ref return values in prefix case, but the simulator header did-not). Note that the libc++ implementation uses reference return types: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/libcxx/include/iterator So does the libstd++ implementation: https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/libstdc%2B%2B-v3/include/bits/stl_iterator.h Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D89528/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D89528 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
