[lldb] Delete unreachable(ish) code (NFCish) #9923
Closed
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
|
@swift-ci test |
adrian-prantl
force-pushed
the
remove-dollar-check
branch
from
1e28f8a to
2724072
Compare
kastiglione
reviewed
Jan 30, 2025
kastiglione
reviewed
Jan 30, 2025
kastiglione
approved these changes
Jan 30, 2025
No test in the testsuite triggeres this code path, except for the new ValueGeneric tes, which triggers it for entirely the wrong reason. I added a new test that exercises the case that is mentioned in the comment to make sure that this is indeed obsolete.
adrian-prantl
force-pushed
the
remove-dollar-check
branch
from
2724072 to
977610f
Compare
|
@swift-ci test |
|
Rolled into #9928 |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
No test in the testsuite triggeres this code path, except for the new ValueGeneric tes, which triggers it for entirely the wrong reason. I added a new test that exercises the case that is mentioned in the comment to make sure that this is indeed obsolete.