[PATCH] D39437: Fix a bunch of assert-on-invalid-bitcode regressions after 315483

[Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-commits]

Nico Weber via Phabricator <reviews at reviews.llvm.org> writes:

> thakis added a comment.
>
> I'm not subscribed to llvm-commits so replying here:
>
>> What happened to the errorToBool idea?
>
> Apologies I didn't see that suggestion (it's here: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20171030/498706.html) because it didn't make it to phab somehow. (Weren't email replies supposed to show up on phab?)
>
> errorToErrorCode() takes an error. The new function here would take an Expected, right? Do you want
>
>   return expectedToBool(BCData);
>
> in the first two functions? If so, that wouldn't make the 3rd any shorter. If we had an errorToBool(), the first three would look like
>
>   if (!BCData)
>     return errorToBool(BCData.takeError());
>
> (followed by
>
>   return true;
>
> in the first two.)

It could be just

errorToBool(BCData.takeError());

and errorToBool() can handle ErrorSuccess, no?

Cheers,
Rafael