[LLVM 4.0] Explicitly call constructor of 'llvm::Error' #38296
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The implicit constructor has been deleted. We should use Error::success() instead. The constructor in the LLVM headers mentions that "success" should be used instead of the deleted constructor for clarity.
|
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
|
This brings us one step closer to upgrading to LLVM 4.0 in #37609. |
|
@bors: r+ |
|
📌 Commit 6222de3 has been approved by |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 12, 2016
[LLVM 4.0] Explicitly call constructor of 'llvm::Error' The implicit constructor has been deleted. We should use Error::success() instead. The constructor in the LLVM headers mentions that "success" should be used instead of the deleted constructor for clarity.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The implicit constructor has been deleted. We should use
Error::success() instead.
The constructor in the LLVM headers mentions that "success" should be
used instead of the deleted constructor for clarity.