rsmith accepted this revision. rsmith added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54356#1297506, @void wrote: > This code is called in over 90 places, so it's hard to tell if they all are > in a constant context. Though I suppose that what this code is supposed to > check for would work the same in a constant context as without one. I can > revert this if you want, but to be honest the original function was > terrible--it's huge and hard to understand what's going on. As for adding new > expressions, this isn't the only place where a `StmtVisitor` is used. One > still needs to go through all of those visitors to see if they need to add > their expression. Thinking about this some more: in the case where adding a new `Stmt` node without considering this code is likely to result in a silent and initially-unnoticed bug, I think it's useful to use one of our covered-switch-like patterns. But I don't think this actually is such a case; the C ICE rules are pretty conservative in what they allow, and new `Stmt` nodes should nearly always be treated as non-ICE. Thank you! Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D54356 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
