| commit | 710fde88688bb4919404f37fa54ae9272bccea2f | [log] [tgz] |
|---|---|---|
| author | Philip Reames <listmail@philipreames.com> | Wed Sep 23 18:39:37 2015 +0000 |
| committer | Philip Reames <listmail@philipreames.com> | Wed Sep 23 18:39:37 2015 +0000 |
| tree | 2a9bc949cc666d7d08ca83862a9eb76582ab2765 | |
| parent | ffafbd3b2acace647ee924bdfd623aa2bb1c26a9 [diff] |
[docs] Update DominatorTree docs to clarify expectations around unreachable blocks Note: I'm am not trying to describe what "should be"; I'm only describing what is true today. This came out of my recent question to llvm-dev titled: When can the dominator tree not contain a node for a basic block? Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13078 git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@248417 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8