[clang] [clang][bytecode][NFC] Remove incorrect comment (PR #139571)

[via cfe-commits]

llvmbot wrote:


<!--LLVM PR SUMMARY COMMENT-->

@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang

Author: Timm Baeder (tbaederr)

<details>
<summary>Changes</summary>

We don't create function frames for builtin functions anymore.

---
Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/139571.diff


1 Files Affected:

- (modified) clang/lib/AST/ByteCode/InterpFrame.cpp (+1-5) 


``````````diff
diff --git a/clang/lib/AST/ByteCode/InterpFrame.cpp b/clang/lib/AST/ByteCode/InterpFrame.cpp
index e4bd4a6ba7656..a849ac71a7263 100644
--- a/clang/lib/AST/ByteCode/InterpFrame.cpp
+++ b/clang/lib/AST/ByteCode/InterpFrame.cpp
@@ -133,11 +133,7 @@ static bool shouldSkipInBacktrace(const Function *F) {
 }
 
 void InterpFrame::describe(llvm::raw_ostream &OS) const {
-  // We create frames for builtin functions as well, but we can't reliably
-  // diagnose them. The 'in call to' diagnostics for them add no value to the
-  // user _and_ it doesn't generally work since the argument types don't always
-  // match the function prototype. Just ignore them.
-  // Similarly, for lambda static invokers, we would just print __invoke().
+  // For lambda static invokers, we would just print __invoke().
   if (const auto *F = getFunction(); F && shouldSkipInBacktrace(F))
     return;
 

``````````

</details>


https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/139571