lebedev.ri added a comment. In D59712#1469693 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59712#1469693>, @jdenny wrote:
> In D59712#1469392 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59712#1469392>, @lebedev.ri > wrote: > > > In D59712#1469358 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59712#1469358>, @jdenny wrote: > > > > > In D59712#1469301 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59712#1469301>, @lebedev.ri > > > wrote: > > > > > > > In D59712#1469295 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59712#1469295>, > > > > @craig.topper wrote: > > > > > > > > > Wondering if it would be better to assert for asking for the sign of > > > > > an unsigned APSInt. I could see a caller just wanting to get the msb > > > > > for some reason and not knowing that isNegative won’t work. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, i, too, would think an assert is much better solution (since i > > > > literally just tripped over this in this review.) > > > > > > > > > Does this pass `check-all`? `check-all` of stage-2? test-suite? > > > No. The assert breaks cases in at least ExprConstant.cpp and SemaExpr.cpp. Err, i was talking about the current code in the patch :) CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D59712/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D59712 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
