danlark added a comment. In D155809#4521494 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D155809#4521494>, @rsmith wrote:
> This looks correct to me, but it's still a little subtle. Perhaps it'd be > clearer to map the method to an integer (0 for copy assignment, 1 for move > assignment, 2 for destructor, 3 for equality comparison), and then order them > by that integer? That'd be more obviously a strict weak order. In D155809#4520765 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D155809#4520765>, @shafik wrote: > I am not sure about this change but I think we at least need a test and this > does not seem non-functional if it prevents a crash. This is NFC as it only prevents further assert to fire when stable_sort compares the element with itself Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D155809/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D155809 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
