eandrews added a comment. In D157554#4576478 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D157554#4576478>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> This feels a bit more like a functional change than a non-functional change > because it seems like we should be able to test this case (whereas, if we > think `TC` can never be null in reality, we could add an `assert` for it and > not add test coverage). That said, I'm not certain how to induce a failure > here. Adding @erichkeane in case he has ideas. Yea I agree. I see that this is inside `ReturnTypeRequirement.isTypeConstraint()` so maybe `Param` should always have a type constraint? I'm just naively guessing here though CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D157554/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D157554 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
