steakhal added a comment. In D77062#2305856 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D77062#2305856>, @ASDenysPetrov wrote:
> @steakhal > >> @ASDenysPetrov Do you still want to rework the API of the `assumeZero`? > > This patch more looks like NFC, being just refactored. Fine. > Actually I see that if we find and fix the root cause, we can freely refuse > this patch. > Another thing I see is that this patch will work after a root cause fix as > well. Yes, I think so. > And the last one is that as long a root cause stays unfixed, clang will emit > an assertion without this patch, at least for my testcase. > > So, I can't really evaluate this objectively. What do you think? Actually, I'm expecting to fix this in the need future. I'm really doing the extra mile to come up with a proper fix. Unfortunately, it's deeply in the Core and requires a bunch of stuff to work out how to achieve this. It will be a nice first-time experience though - I've already learned a lot just by debugging it. Till then, I recommend you to follow my effort at D88477 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D88477>. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D77062/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D77062 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
