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

[Simon Pilgrim via llvm-commits]

On 14/04/2017 16:37, Davide Italiano wrote:

> 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?
Well, disabling the code has no effect on tests, but I don't know much 
about bugpoint's test coverage.

Daniel - you did the last refactor of this code - any thoughts?