shafik added a comment. In D64480#1654354 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64480#1654354>, @balazske wrote:
> In D64480#1653629 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64480#1653629>, @shafik wrote: > > > It is worth noting that: > > > > typedef int T; > > typedef int T; > > > > > > is not valid C99 see godbolt <https://godbolt.org/z/638lXv> > > > Should we handle this case? This can be special for C99 only when the > declarations must be merged instead of linked. Probably this does not cause > functional problems if we leave it as is. I don't think it is critical to handle this case but I was surprised when I learned this, it is an edge case and it would be good to note this perhaps as a comment in the code. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D64480/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D64480 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
