[PATCH] D56223: [WebAssembly] Made InstPrinter more robust
Heejin Ahn via Phabricator via llvm-commits
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Thu Jan 3 14:08:19 PST 2019
aheejin added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Target/WebAssembly/InstPrinter/WebAssemblyInstPrinter.cpp:304
+ default:
+ return "invalid_type";
}
----------------
aardappel wrote:
> aheejin wrote:
> > So does this print "invalid_type" even when we have an invalid instruction within itself?
> I'm not sure what you mean. It currently prints this only when an instruction explicitly tries to print an operand that is a block_type or other signature, and it happens to be an unknown value.
Oh what I meant was.. I was not sure if printing instructions like
```
block invalid_type
```
was ok.
```
br 32 # invalid depth argument!
```
seemed ok because even if it's out of context, `br 32` itself is a valid instruction, and we are giving hints that this instruction does not make sense within the current context in the comment anyway. But `block invalid_type` is not an instruction and cannot be parsed. So I think in this case it deserves an assertion, but I don't feel very strongly about it. What do you think?
Repository:
rL LLVM
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56223/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56223
More information about the llvm-commits
mailing list