[PATCH] D36806: Switch to cantFail(), since it does the same assertion.

[Lang Hames via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

lhames added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D36806#848246, @hintonda wrote:

> It's just too bad llvm::cantFail() doesn't take an optional string.
>  But the code is cleaner, so I won't comment further.


That's not a bad idea actually. Let me add an optional error message to cantFail for you.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D36806