hubert-reinterpretcast wrote: > Or is there a deeper issue here and I'm not seeing it?
The previous Clang behaviour produced the wrong type as the result. So the choices are to: 1. Do the old wrong thing: silent incorrect behaviour 2. Do the new wrong thing: produce diagnostic that may confuse users 3. Fix the type associated with the expression https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/89713 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
