https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46721
Sanjay Patel <[email protected]> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Also| |https://bugs.llvm.org/show_
| |bug.cgi?id=50228
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Comment #9 from Sanjay Patel <[email protected]> ---
(In reply to Roman Lebedev from comment #8)
> (In reply to Sanjay Patel from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Felix A. Croes from comment #6)
> > > In any case, this clarifies for me that the input which triggers the crash
> > > is indeed malformed.
> >
> > Should we close this bug report or is there something to do (within LLVM)?
> I think so.
>
> > The LangRef and/or the verifier assert statement could be made clearer about
> > the phi requirement that each predecessor edge requires an incoming value.
>
> I think this implementation detail is *really* unfortunate,
> and i would welcome it going away, if that wouldn't penalize other code.
I don't know if there are any subtleties there, but filed as bug 50228 for
further discussion.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug._______________________________________________
llvm-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
