chenwj requested changes to this revision.
chenwj added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
Nits.
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGDebugInfo.cpp:3644
+void CGDebugInfo::EmitLabel(const LabelDecl *D,
+ CGBuilderTy &Builder) {
+ assert(De
chenwj created this revision.
Herald added subscribers: rengolin, aemerson.
The Result variable is unused both in Sema::CheckARMBuiltinFunctionCall and
Sema::CheckAArch64BuiltinFunctionCall, remove it.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D32014
Files:
lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp
Index: lib/Sema/SemaChe
chenwj added a comment.
I don't have commit access, need someone's help. :-)
https://reviews.llvm.org/D32014
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
chenwj added a comment.
Ping? :-)
https://reviews.llvm.org/D32014
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
chenwj added a comment.
> Ah, sorry. "Our Tests" means the lit test SemaObjC/method-bad-param.m (line
> 11). I ran the lit tests initially with a breakpoint on this line and it
> never hit, though I must have set up the debugger wrong. Once I replaced it
> with an assert, method-bad-param fa
chenwj added a subscriber: eli.friedman.
chenwj added a comment.
@eli.friedman I find you added `isObjCObjectType` check in svn revision 184006
(git commit ddb5a392). Could you confirm returning zero rather than true here
is okay? A little explanation would be even better. Thanks.
https://revi
chenwj added a comment.
@erichkeane Just share what I investigated.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32759#744769, @erichkeane wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32759#744613, @chenwj wrote:
>
> > > Ah, sorry. "Our Tests" means the lit test SemaObjC/method-bad-param.m
> > > (line 11). I ran th
chenwj added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32759#748007, @efriedma wrote:
> The difference between returning true and false here is just the way error
> recovery works: when we return true, we know the type is invalid, so we
> suppress it, and subsequent errors involving the declarati
chenwj added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32759#748916, @efriedma wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32759#748653, @chenwj wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32759#748007, @efriedma wrote:
> >
> > > The difference between returning true and false here is just the way
> > > e
