joaomoreira added a comment. In D119296#3483176 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D119296#3483176>, @nickdesaulniers wrote:
> In D119296#3481573 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D119296#3481573>, @joaomoreira > wrote: > >> I'm not an expert on LLVM's pipeline, but it just feels a little awkward and >> redundant that we need passes to fix what other passes messed up regarding a >> pass that executed before everything. > > I don't think so. Consider DCE; other passes leave behind garbage all the > time; DCE is expected to clean up after them. Hm. Ok, if this is normalized, then I guess my point is just bike shedding, so I drop the argument. FWIIW, while I would still prefer the checks to be adjacent to the indirect call, I can live with it. I tested the instrumentation and it looks fine on my end and the fixed version of the code seems to handle the dummy checks for good. With this said, it LGTM. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D119296/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D119296 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
