martong added a comment. > Currently, we are totally inconsistent about the diagnostics. Either we > should emit a diagnostic before all return false or we should not ever emit > any diags. The diagnostics in their current form are misleading, because > there could be many notes missing. I am not sure how much do you guys value > these diags in LLDB, but in CTU we simply don't care about them. I'd rather > remove these diags from the equivalency check code, because they are causing > only confusion. (Or we should properly implement and test all aspects of the > diags.)
In D88665#2311344 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D88665#2311344>, @teemperor wrote: > LGTM, thanks! Thanks for the review! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D88665/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D88665 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
