[llvm] r300327 - [Bugpoint] Use boolean AND instead of bitwise AND (PR32660)

[Davide Italiano via llvm-commits]

On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Simon Pilgrim via llvm-commits
<llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Author: rksimon
> Date: Fri Apr 14 10:21:15 2017
> New Revision: 300327
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=300327&view=rev
> Log:
> [Bugpoint] Use boolean AND instead of bitwise AND (PR32660)
>
> Modified:
>     llvm/trunk/tools/bugpoint/CrashDebugger.cpp
>
> Modified: llvm/trunk/tools/bugpoint/CrashDebugger.cpp
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/tools/bugpoint/CrashDebugger.cpp?rev=300327&r1=300326&r2=300327&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- llvm/trunk/tools/bugpoint/CrashDebugger.cpp (original)
> +++ llvm/trunk/tools/bugpoint/CrashDebugger.cpp Fri Apr 14 10:21:15 2017
> @@ -1113,7 +1113,7 @@ static Error DebugACrash(BugDriver &BD,
>        BD.EmitProgressBitcode(BD.getProgram(), "reduced-blocks");
>    }
>
> -  if (!DisableSimplifyCFG & !BugpointIsInterrupted) {
> +  if (!DisableSimplifyCFG && !BugpointIsInterrupted) {
>      std::vector<const BasicBlock *> Blocks;
>      for (Function &F : *BD.getProgram())
>        for (BasicBlock &BB : F)
>

I wonder what was the original intent of this code and if it worked at
all. If not, we can probably either simplify/remove it, rather than
just silencing a warning in the obvious way. WDYT?

Thanks,

-- 
Davide

"There are no solved problems; there are only problems that are more
or less solved" -- Henri Poincare