[patch][rfc] Asserting that we have all use/users in the getters

[Rafael Espíndola via llvm-commits]

On 18 December 2015 at 09:17, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote:
> Also got bit by this once, so really like the idea.
>
> Some clear comments are needed to explain what "unchecked" means and
> when you would want to use it, since it isn't obvious from the name. I
> can't think of any alternate name that is particularly meaningful and
> reasonably concise. Maybe "materialized_uses", etc to indicate it is
> only looking for uses that have been materialized thus far?

I like the name, thanks.

BTW, do you have any thoughts on the "Drop support for
dematerializing"? It should remove some of the more odd uses of the
unchecked versions, so I would like to commit that first if possible.

Thanks,
Rafael