https://github.com/martinboehme closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67311
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
martinboehme wrote:
> Ah- thanks! I just didn't want to loosen the check too much, but looks like
> this wasn't the only condition.
Yes, looks like it. We may want to revisit this in the future, but for now,
dropping the assertion seems like the right thing to do.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm
https://github.com/kinu approved this pull request.
Ah- thanks! I just didn't want to loosen the check too much, but looks like
this wasn't the only condition.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67311
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@l
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
Changes
The assertion fails on the test TransferTest.EvaluateBlockWithUnreachablePreds
(which I think, ironically, was introuced in the same patch as the assertion).
This just wasn't obvious because the assertion is inside an `LLVM_DEBUG` block
and
https://github.com/martinboehme created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67311
The assertion fails on the test TransferTest.EvaluateBlockWithUnreachablePreds
(which I think, ironically, was introuced in the same patch as the assertion).
This just wasn't obvious because the assertion is
