rjmccall added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20407#440050, @ahatanak wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20407#439951, @rjmccall wrote: > > > The C standard is poorly-written in this area, but I think it would be > > reasonable for CheckFunctionReturnType to just silently remove _Atomic. > > (You will not be able to just re-use your new method there; removing other > > qualifiers is not acceptable, I'm afraid.) > > > Do you mean I should fix those cases in this patch too? No, sorry, just pointing something out for your other patch. http://reviews.llvm.org/D20407 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
