I am working on trying to understand how I can be called with the
parameter values I am getting called with.
If it turns out to be okay, then i will remove the comment
// should not happen
I don't really know it "should not happen". I just believe this to be
the case.
If it turns out that these parameters should indeed not be being passed
for me, I will attempt to make a patch or else update the bug that I
already filed against clang for this issue.
On 03/18/2013 04:36 PM, Rafael Espíndola wrote:
Hi Rafael,
I don't think I should have to revert this patch.
I'm not even sure if there is another bug.
I don't know the code that is calling this. It's just my opinion that there
is some other issue.
Then you should investigate that. What we should never do is add
if (!Fn) return; // should not happen
If it should not happen, this should be an assert (as it was before
your patch). It it is a logically valid condition, instead of the
wrong comment we should have a test where Fn is null.
Someone that knows clang can explain how FD is a function declaration but GV
is not a Function.
Why is that my responsibility to sort that out?
Because you changed the code.
This code is need for the mips test-suite to not regress and for my
attribute work to continue.
Sorry. You should not push problems to others. Looks like you actually
have a testcase and you just need to reduce it. Please revert this
patch and reduce the testcase. Depending on what you find you can put
this patch back, but without the comment and with a testcase where Fn
is null.
Reed
Cheers,
Rafael
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
