r177329 - This code works around what appears to be a bug in another part of clang.

[reed kotler]

I am working on trying to understand how I can be called with the 
parameter values I am getting called with.

If it turns out to be okay, then i will remove the comment

// should not happen

I don't really know it "should not happen". I just believe this to be 
the case.

If it turns out that these parameters should indeed not be being passed 
for me, I will attempt to make a patch or else update the bug that I 
already filed against clang for this issue.

On 03/18/2013 04:36 PM, Rafael Espíndola wrote:
>> Hi Rafael,
>>
>> I don't think I should have to revert this patch.
>>
>> I'm not even sure if there is another bug.
>>
>> I don't know the code that is calling this. It's just my opinion that there
>> is some other issue.
> Then you should investigate that. What we should never do is add
>
>      if (!Fn) return; // should not happen
>
> If it should not happen, this should be an assert (as it was before
> your patch). It it is a logically valid condition, instead of the
> wrong comment we should have a test where Fn is null.
>
>> Someone that knows clang can explain how FD is a function declaration but GV
>> is not a Function.
>> Why is that my responsibility to sort that out?
> Because you changed the code.
>
>> This code is need for the mips test-suite to not regress and for my
>> attribute work to continue.
> Sorry. You should not push problems to others. Looks like you actually
> have a testcase and you just need to reduce it. Please revert this
> patch and reduce the testcase. Depending on what you find you can put
> this patch back, but without the comment and with a testcase where Fn
> is null.
>
>> Reed
>>
>>
> Cheers,
> Rafael