snprajwal wrote:
Understandable, thank you!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/171522
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
snprajwal wrote:
No, this specific code path has always produced incorrect output, even in past
versions of LLVM. I took care to keep the scope of the change as small as
possible to reduce the risk for this backport.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/171522
snprajwal wrote:
It's not a regression, it's a bug that surfaced recently.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/171522
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bra
snprajwal wrote:
Hi @dyung, this is a small patch, but it fixes a serious correctness issue with
the declaration fragments emitted by ExtractAPI. When typedefs are present in
method parameters, e.g.:
```c
typedef int (^CustomType)(const unsigned int *, unsigned long);
void bar(CustomType block
