steakhal wrote: > My proposal is to judge the current `FieldDecl` at the beginning of the loop, > and if it's a UnamedBitField, just skip it, because at that point the > UnamedBitField's static check should be passing. If it's a NamedBitField then > it needs to be initialized to pass the static check (i.e. go deeper to > determine the type, value or whatever).
Exactly. I think it makes a lot more sense to check this as early as possible to have a reduced set of possibilities to think about later. @kr-2003 Could you please update your PR accordingly? > The current test cases are sufficient. I'm not sure about the answers to the > other questions. I agree. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/132427 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
