Merged
Conversation
Collaborator
|
Just FYI @evilpie is OOO this week but will return next week. |
annevk
reviewed
Nov 25, 2025
annevk
approved these changes
Nov 25, 2025
Collaborator
annevk
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let me approve in case this holds up editing of other bits as Tom can also review post-merge I suppose.
evilpie
reviewed
Dec 1, 2025
evilpie
reviewed
Dec 1, 2025
evilpie
requested changes
Dec 1, 2025
3d57f4d to
28deb1f
Compare
evilpie
requested changes
Dec 10, 2025
Collaborator
evilpie
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are still some comments from my previous review.
28deb1f to
9238bc4
Compare
Collaborator
|
I just looked at this again and it doesn't seem like my feedback was addressed. |
evilpie
approved these changes
Feb 3, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This rewrite [=SanitizerConfig/valid=] as algorithm, instead of a set of conditions.
There should be no difference in semantics.
Fix: #313
Preview | Diff