arsenm added a comment. In D110257#3134001 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D110257#3134001>, @JonChesterfield wrote:
> So you won't articulate or document the new invariant and you think there's a > llvm-dev discussion that says we can't verify the invariant which you won't > reference, but means you won't add this to the verifier. The verifier does not check for whether or things are canonical or not. We don't really have formal definitions for what's considered canonical, it's just what people think make later optimizations easier. This is not a change in the IR rules. > Request changes doesn't really work after you've applied the patch. > > @rnk do you object to me reverting this? I don't think we can add an > invariant to IR which is undocumented and unverified/unverifiable and the > patch author seems opposed to fixing either omission. I object to reverting this as this has nothing which the verifier should be checking Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D110257/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D110257 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
