cor3ntin added a comment. In D104975#2944703 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D104975#2944703>, @rsmith wrote:
> In D104975#2944313 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D104975#2944313>, @cor3ntin > wrote: > >> @rsmith: I modified the script locally to support dxx: dup PXXXX - let me >> know if you think that's a good solution > > Not sure if that's a typo: did you mean "sup" rather than "dup"? In this > case, it seems like "sup" is right if the old DR resolution no longer > applies. (If the old resolution does still apply, but was generalized, then I > think we should just leave the DR status table alone for that issue, because > that issue's resolution is still implemented.) yep, I meant sup, sorry. I made the change Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D104975/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D104975 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
