hliao added a comment. In D67924#1679409 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D67924#1679409>, @erichkeane wrote:
> Yikes, good catch! > > Would we be better off instead to just modify how the other switch loads the > value? Presumably something like, "if (NeedsRearrangeArgs) > SubExprs.append(Args.begin(), Args.end()); else /*the switch*/. Loop from L4762 will check "value" arguments assuming the API order as well. That's why arguments are arranged so that the value checking logic also check the correct arguments. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D67924/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D67924 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
