Endill added a comment. In D142316#4073771 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D142316#4073771>, @shafik wrote:
> You mention CWG2385 <https://wg21.link/cwg2385> as na but you don't explain > how it was resolved, was it superceded by p1787 > <https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p1787r6.html>. CWG2385 points out to inconsistency in wording introduced by resolution of CWG1111, so I consider it a pure wording change. This issue, as well as aforementioned CWG1111, were resolved independently of P1787 <https://reviews.llvm.org/P1787>, hence I didn't provide any explanation for them. In D142316#4073771 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D142316#4073771>, @shafik wrote: > Also nitpick you mentioned `P1787` in the description but it links to a phab > review, you should probably just use a link like I did above to refer to > papers. Same with the defect reports also like I did above. Folks may not > know how to find defect reports and or papers. I felt that it's going to worsen the readability of raw commit messages, but I can indeed use markdown links if it helps. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D142316/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D142316 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
