kr-2003 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.
Done 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
