[PATCH] D130156: [llvm] Fix some test failures with EXPENSIVE_CHECKS and libstdc++

[Adrian Prantl via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

aprantl added a comment.

Shoud we just leave the check in unconditionally as an optimization?



================
Comment at: llvm/lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/DebugLocEntry.h:220
+    // call operator< below, even if there is only one item
+    // (preumably to check if the comparator is implemented correctly).
+    // Values has 2 states. 1 item that does not have a fragment, or
----------------
presumably


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D130156/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D130156