Remove spurious code #811
Merged
Remove spurious code #811
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is part of #730, and is related to the changes made in #769 to support LLVM's new opaque pointers.
The problem fixed by this PR is that in the initial draft of #759, I changed the check in this code block to use the
isCollectionSortfunction. However, this conditional statement is actually universally-dead code that was made incorrectly live by the amended type-check!1 The correct behaviour is just to drop the block entirely.I have tested these changes against the K integration test suite as well as the backend tests to make sure we aren't relying on this code in some obscure behaviour.
Footnotes
As far as I can tell, this is because the
srethandling code misunderstands what the reported return value from the call will be. ↩