eandrews added a comment. In D157554#4577504 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D157554#4577504>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D157554#4576720 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D157554#4576720>, @eandrews > wrote: > >> 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 > > As I read the code, I think an assert is sufficient -- if the param is a type > constraint, I believe we expect a non-null type constraint and a null one is > a sign of a bug. Alright. I'll make the change then. Thanks! 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
