jdenny added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46919#1107296, @rsmith wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46919#1101268, @jdenny wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46919#1100493, @rsmith wrote: > > > > > The deprecated enumerator is also referenced by > > > `tools/c-index-test/c-index-test.c` > > > > > > This test prompted me to keep the IncludeTagDefinition member in > > PrintingPolicy so that clang_PrintingPolicy_getProperty would return the > > previous value set by clang_PrintingPolicy_setProperty. Otherwise, the > > value doesn't have any effect. Is that self-consistency not worth worrying > > about? If so, I'll remove both. > > > I don't think it's worth worrying about. We don't guarantee that the values > round-trip in general (most of them are `unsigned`s being written to a > `bool`, so we don't preserve values that are neither 0 nor 1). I was actually thinking of a different test (see my comments from today), and it wants 0 and 1 to be preserved. https://reviews.llvm.org/D46919 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
