xazax.hun accepted this revision. xazax.hun added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
In D126973#3556383 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D126973#3556383>, @ymandel wrote: > I'm generally hesitant about assertions that don't enforce necessary > properties (only "nice"). I think not enforcing this in the current model is OK. I am more concerned about the future if we plan to run multiple checks/modeling in the same fixed point iteration. One check might make the assumption that the types are matching up while the other can end up producing values where this is not the case. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D126973/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D126973 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
