[llvm] r184239 - We want a string representation of the attribute, not the kind as a string.

[David Blaikie]

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2013, at 3:43 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jun 18, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jun 18, 2013, at 2:35 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Author: void
>>>>>> Date: Tue Jun 18 16:27:00 2013
>>>>>> New Revision: 184239
>>>>>>
>>>>>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=184239&view=rev
>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>> We want a string representation of the attribute, not the kind as a string.
>>>>>
>>>>> Test case? (do we have test cases for the verifier?)
>>>>>
>>>> I'll cobble one together.
>>>>
>>> I don't think I can. This requires that the .bc file be malformed. So the `llvm-as' will reject it before it gets to the code I just fixed...
>>
>> Can we remove this as dead code then? (replace it with an assert)
>
> No. The check is valid for checking bitcode rather than text.

Be nice to have tests for it, then - even if they're checked in binary
files. (I'd be OK with them being derived from known good files with a
comment (in the corresponding 'foo.test' text file that actually has
the RUN line in it) explaining which bit was twiddled)

Do we not have any tests for binary-only issues the verifier can diagnose?

- David