eddyz87 added a comment. In D136041#3863748 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D136041#3863748>, @dblaikie wrote:
> Hmm - this does mean linking IR can produce invalid code, though, right (you > link in a definition of the function, so what was valid is now invalid - > because it now has a definition, can be inlined, etc)? Is that new? > concerning? As far as I understand this <https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20160425/350532.html> discussion the check in question is "best effort". My change further narrows conditions when verifier would report an error, thus it should not add any new failures to the existing code. But yes, hypothetically there might be a situation when old version of the check would have caught a miss-behaving transformation at an earlier stage (before linking IR rather then after). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D136041/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D136041 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
