AmrDeveloper wrote:

> I'm not suggesting errorNYI. I'm suggesting op.emitError(). We can't do that 
> here either, but maybe we could do it in the function from which this is 
> called?

I think it's easier to keep it as assert, llvm_unreachable or a missing 
features as the error message mention, because otherwise we will modify the 
function to return nullptr to flag this case and also to modify the caller to 
catch it and report, also we don't have Operator to use it to emitError, what 
do you think? @andykaylor 

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/132974
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to