Fix Item_8026AD20 argument - #3089
Draft
g-guthrie wants to merge 2 commits into
Draft
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
What changed
Item_8026AD20's declaration and definition.1from the forward-throw path and0from the backward-throw path inftCo_80095EFC.Why
The retail
ftCo_80095EFCcall sites materializer6immediately before bothItem_8026AD20calls. The current four-argument prototype omitted those instructions even though the callee does not consume the value.Impact
This restores both missing call-site instructions and improves the remaining unmatched function without changing
Item_8026AD20's body behavior.Validation
ftCo_ItemThrow.canditem.cftCo_80095EFC(penalty 1410 to 1210)python3 tools/check/main.py --fix --quietclang-format 22.1.0 --dry-run --Werrorgit diff --check