aaron.ballman added a comment. In D157554#4576720 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D157554#4576720>, @eandrews wrote:
> In D157554#4576478 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D157554#4576478>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> This feels a bit more like a functional change than a non-functional change >> because it seems like we should be able to test this case (whereas, if we >> think `TC` can never be null in reality, we could add an `assert` for it and >> not add test coverage). That said, I'm not certain how to induce a failure >> here. Adding @erichkeane in case he has ideas. > > Yea I agree. I see that this is inside > `ReturnTypeRequirement.isTypeConstraint()` so maybe `Param` should always > have a type constraint? I'm just naively guessing here though As I read the code, I think an assert is sufficient -- if the param is a type constraint, I believe we expect a non-null type constraint and a null one is a sign of a bug. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D157554/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D157554 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
