ASDenysPetrov added a comment. In D106681#3074678 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D106681#3074678>, @steakhal wrote:
> I think it's fine, maybe `NFCi` is would be slightly more accurate, while > stating the minor behavior change and the reason for doing so in the patch > summary could further improve the visibility of this issue. > > That being said, since it actually changes some behavior, I'd like to request > some tests covering the following (uncovered lines): > L1646, L1689, L1699 For **L1646** currently I'm not sure about the exact test, since it is a heritage of the old code, so it just jumped here from the past. If you could give an example I would appreciate this. For **L1689** I'll add it. For **L1699** I've added //TODO// cases in D104285 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D104285>. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D106681/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D106681 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
