owenca wrote: > > It does fix the example given. > > #83400 has 6 real-world examples. This patch fixes none of them. It also has > a reduced testcase, which this patch does fix. But fixing the reduced > testcase without fixing the real-world examples is not fixing the bug.
You took what I said out of context. I'll reiterate it below: > It does fix the example given. For other diffs involving user-defined types, > the user need to use the TypeNames option. (If that doesn't work, a separate > issue should be filed.) So again, this patch fixes the test case that "reproduces the issue" (in the issue author's own words), and I already explained to you that the other 6 diffs (which are of the same construct, i.e. casting an address to a user-defined type in a macro definition) require the user to use the TypeNames option. (See the added test cases in fcae75ddb85e above.) If the author of #83400 is still not satisfied, there's nothing to stop them from reopening the issue or filing a new issue. However, that's highly unlikely as they already expressed their view on it: > But you can also see in the same PR > https://github.com/godotengine/godot/pull/88959 that other cases where & is a > bitwise operator were fixed by clang-format. I'm not sure there's any easy > way for clang-format to know which is which, if so I understand if this is > considered a "won't fix". https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83709 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
