jyknight wrote: This sounds sketchy to me. Is it really valid to enter a second call inside another call's CALLSEQ markers, but only if we avoid adding a second nested set of markers? It feels like attacking the symptom of the issue, but not the root cause. (I'm not certain it's _not_ valid, but it just seems really suspicious...)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/106965 _______________________________________________ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
