aeubanks added a comment. In D110673#3029253 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D110673#3029253>, @dblaikie wrote:
> It'd be good to understand/document (maybe document in the form of a test if > possible) how downstream users are relying on this - perhaps it's not a valid > reliance and we shouldn't maintain compatibility? Maybe it is and we should > ensure some test coverage of the sort of use case we're supporting, if > possible. @JamesNagurne, given the description could you figure out why the test was failing for you downstream? I don't think I can show any difference upstream, but perhaps we should wait to see if @JamesNagurne can shed some more insight. However, this logic is clearly wrong and just happens to work due to what I described in the description. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D110673/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D110673 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
