omtcyfz added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23243#508097, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> LGTM! We may want to consider BinaryConditionalOperator as well, but that can > be in as a separate patch. Well, I personally have never seen `BinaryConditionalOperator `in my life. And honestly I'm not a fan of supporting GNU extensions - what makes sense to me is to use `BinaryConditionalOperator` in a check which suggests not using GNU extensions. Anyway, I'd be glad if @alexfh could jump in and take a look. https://reviews.llvm.org/D23243 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
