llunak added a comment. In D69778#2032363 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69778#2032363>, @dblaikie wrote:
> So the original commit ( cbc9d22e49b4 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/rGcbc9d22e49b434b6ceb2eb94b67079d02e0a7b74> ) was > reverted at some point, and now you're proposing recommitting it with a > slight change? Yes. > Could you summarize (in the summary (which should hopefully be included in > the commit message eventually)) the commit (include the hash), the revert > (including the hash), reasons for revert and what's changed in this patch > compared to the original commit that addresses the reasons for reverting? Done and see D74846 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74846> for details and the exact change. (& ideally what extra testing was done on the newer version of the patch to ensure the original issue or another like it would now be caught before committing) There's no testing besides checking that PR44953 no longer crashes. As said in D74846 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74846>, I don't see how to do a test for this, and if there's a problem with this patch then the same problem should also exist with modules. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69778/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69778 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
