> On Apr 27, 2016, at 7:27 PM, Douglas Yung <douglas.y...@sony.com> wrote: > > dyung added a comment. > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19048#414568, @aprantl wrote: > >> Thanks! >> >> Is there anything meaningful that could be CHECKed here? >> Usually a crash means that we previously had a code path without test >> coverage. > > > This was definitely a code path without test coverage. > > When you ask whether there is anything meaningful that could be checked here, > are you asking whether we can change the test from testing only that the > compilation succeeds to checking something that the compiler produces? If so, > I could change the test to produce llvm assembly (-S -emit-llvm) instead, and > then perhaps check for the presence of a DIModule within the output. Would > that make a better test?
Yes, please! > > > http://reviews.llvm.org/D19048 > > > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
