hctim marked an inline comment as done. hctim added a comment. In D126224#3534643 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D126224#3534643>, @probinson wrote:
> I see some unrelated whitespace changes, we generally don't like mixing those > with "real" changes. But the description seems fine to me. Looks like someone has cleaned up the whitespace, so the diff is cleaner. ================ Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:447 + structures *without* a ``DW_AT_name`` field, which is valid DWARF, but may + lead to assertion failures in some software. + ---------------- paulkirth wrote: > nit: its likely not an assertion failure, but just invalid code. > > It's also fine w/ me to word this differently, or ignore the suggestion. changed the wording - it's just a common case of "invalid code" that we've seen - asserting that DW_TAG_variables must have a DW_AT_name. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D126224/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D126224 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
