lebedev.ri abandoned this revision. lebedev.ri added a comment. In D59196#1431531 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59196#1431531>, @riccibruno wrote:
> In D59196#1431473 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59196#1431473>, @lebedev.ri > wrote: > > > In D59196#1429393 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59196#1429393>, @riccibruno > > wrote: > > > > > I am not an expert in the serialization code (just did some > > > modifications), but this seems reasonable to me. > > > > > > That's my thoughts too.. > > Unless of course it is also testing that `NumStmtFields` is zero. > > Anyone with more knowledged opinion? > > > On further though I think the assert is fine if you view it as the last thing > in `VisitStmt`, since it is checking that you did not forget a field. Instead > just move the deserialization of the new bit you introduce in D59214 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59214> so that the assert is last. Oh, that should actually be it. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D59196/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D59196 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
