aprantl added a comment. In D70524#1757237 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D70524#1757237>, @dblaikie wrote:
> Generally if you're not touching LLVM code, I would suggest not adding an > LLVM test - unless this is new or surprising usage of existing LLVM > functionality (or the functionality was otherwise undertested in LLVM > previously). But I'm guessing that's not the case here? The rephrase the question David is asking: Do we already have an LLVM test for a named unspecified type? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D70524/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D70524 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
