[LLVMdev] Should the MachineVerifier accept a MBB with a single (landing pad) successor?

[Tim Northover]

Hi Ahmed,

On 12 November 2014 10:47, Ahmed Bougacha <ahmed.bougacha at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've been investigating a machine verifier failure on the attached
>> testcase, and I'm tempted to say the verifier is wrong and should
>> accept it.  Skip the description for the proposed change.

I think you made a fair case. Each step along the way seems
reasonable, so the IR ought to be valid. I don't think we want to be
guaranteeing redundant branches will be removed, which is the only
other realistic solution.

Cheers.

Tim.