NoQ added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D16403#1013346, @m.ostapenko wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D16403#1011218, @NoQ wrote: > > > Yeah, i mean, like, if we change the scope markers to also appear even when > > no variables are present in the scope, then it would be possible to replace > > loop markers with some of the scope markers, right? > > > Hm, so does this mean that I need to cover the case when no variables are > present in loop scope here in this patch? Definitely not :) Feel free to address it some day (or let someone else address it) - the culture of keeping our patches small is something that we currently badly lack :) Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D16403 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
