On Jul 1, 2013, at 18:39 , Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jun 24, 2013, at 9:06 , Matthew Dempsky <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote: >> There aren't any...all of the symmetrical operations require both arguments >> to be of the same type. I'm pretty sure the "Special case" below for the >> compare-and-swap functions is now dead code. >> >> That sounds plausible to me. >> >> Do you think it'd worth adding an assertion that we never get a comparison >> op here? >> >> Yep, removing the isComparisonOp() code path, and adding an assert to ensure >> it isn't reached (before the rhs.isZeroConstant() check) sounds good to me. > > Done in r185401. Thanks! This actually uncovered a bug (well, an inconsistency) in our basic pointer-to-member support (fixed in r185444), so I'm glad to have this assertion. :-) Jordan
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
