AaronBallman wrote: > currently the macro definition for both `&` and `bitand` is not giving any > warning however should the `&` one warn? or current working is correct > behaviour as expected?
The current behavior is what I'd expect. The idea being: if the user is using `&` directly, it's not clear whether they accidentally meant to use `&&` instead, but if they use something with an identifier (a macro, whether it's named `bitand` or not), then there's very little chance they meant `&&` instead. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81976 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
