AmrDeveloper wrote: > I'm not suggesting errorNYI. I'm suggesting op.emitError(). We can't do that > here either, but maybe we could do it in the function from which this is > called?
I think it's easier to keep it as assert, llvm_unreachable or a missing features as the error message mention, because otherwise we will modify the function to return nullptr to flag this case and also to modify the caller to catch it and report, also we don't have Operator to use it to emitError, what do you think? @andykaylor https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/132974 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
