fhahn added a comment. In D106005#2896080 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D106005#2896080>, @SaurabhJha wrote:
> In D106005#2895716 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D106005#2895716>, @fhahn wrote: > >> Thank you very much for working on this! Are you planning on implementing >> the new specification as well? It would probably be good to land the update >> to the spec in close succession to the implementation, to avoid confusing >> users. > > Yes, that's my plan. Once this is in, I will start working on the > implementation right away. Ok cool! I think the latest version looks good (modulo making sure the new lines are limited to 80 chars per line). @rjmccall can you think of any scenarios where defining initializers with one expression and broadcasting them might cause issues? With respect to ordering the patches, I think it would be good to put up a patch implementing the newly added parts, commit it and then land the patch that adds it to the docs. WDYT? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D106005/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D106005 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
