https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36529
George Burgess <george.burgess...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #2 from George Burgess <george.burgess...@gmail.com> ---
Oh, right. VHes are things.
In general, I'm a bit uneasy about the idea that we just hold on to this cache
entry without any way to update/detect it from the cached value, but I can't
think of a concrete example (that isn't a misoptimization) that would cause a
WeakVH approach to break here.
That said, should we find such an example in the future, we can always try to
make that work.
r326175 + r326177 should fix this.
Thank you!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug._______________________________________________
llvm-bugs mailing list
llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
