NoQ added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32437#750622, @zaks.anna wrote:
> > That wouldn't work this way because we'd have the completely redundant > > "calling property accessor" piece before that, and "returning..." after > > that. > > I think we should not print "calling" and "returning" for calling into and > returning from autogenerated code, This sounds logical, yeah, i could do that as well (though right now it doesn't work that way, and i suspect nobody tried). https://reviews.llvm.org/D32437 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
