Parth

> but the example posted there at the bottom also uses passing struct as reference. Oh yes, you are right. I missed that. Thank you for the clarification.

Hi @kchristin22 I meant the first snippet only -- that is mentioned in the issue description. > clang-14 and 15 failed to compile the code correctly. Just to clarify, do...

Hi @maxaehle Thank you for opening the issue. The behaviour is expected and I am not sure if it's something that we would want to change in the near future....

> Why we can't support that? We can support it if we want to. However, it would be non-trivial and require effective usage of global tapes. For instance, please consider...

Hi @maxaehle Thank you for the detailed analysis! > so they introduce a global adjoint variable. So tapenade uses global adjoint variables. I don't think it's a good solution. Using...

Hi @kchristin22 Thank you for being so proactive in fixing issues. > I had started working on a way to potentially support the case of void foo(double *in, double *out)...

> When there is no return statement and a value/pointer is modified inside the function we want to derive, the user has to initialize the derivative of the argument before...

> I was thinking of adding an extra argument to the gradient function to declare the return argument only for void functions. I'm not sure yet of how I could...

> No no, in that PR I just initialize the derivative (the seed) for the input arg which is treated as both an input and output in the void function....

> Do you think that a "warning" of the user to initialize the derivatives should be included in the README? Sure. However, I don't think it should be a warning...