Skip to content

Remove deprecated base_type_eq #5167

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from
Closed

Remove deprecated base_type_eq #5167

wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

LAJW
Copy link
Contributor

@LAJW LAJW commented Oct 22, 2019

  • Each commit message has a non-empty body, explaining why the change was made.
  • [n/a] Methods or procedures I have added are documented, following the guidelines provided in CODING_STANDARD.md.
  • [n/a] The feature or user visible behaviour I have added or modified has been documented in the User Guide in doc/cprover-manual/
  • [n/a] Regression or unit tests are included, or existing tests cover the modified code (in this case I have detailed which ones those are in the commit message).
  • [n/a] My commit message includes data points confirming performance improvements (if claimed).
  • My PR is restricted to a single feature or bugfix.
  • White-space or formatting changes outside the feature-related changed lines are in commits of their own.

Lukasz A.J. Wrona added 2 commits October 22, 2019 13:18
Because it warns it's deprecated.
No longer used anywhere
@LAJW LAJW changed the title Lajw/base type eq Remove deprecated base_type_eq Oct 22, 2019
Because it no longer exists
@LAJW LAJW force-pushed the lajw/base_type_eq branch from fb405dd to 569606b Compare October 22, 2019 12:44
@kroening
Copy link
Member

#4056 ?

@LAJW
Copy link
Contributor Author

LAJW commented Jan 9, 2020

Duplicate. Closing.

@LAJW LAJW closed this Jan 9, 2020
@LAJW LAJW deleted the lajw/base_type_eq branch January 9, 2020 23:36
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants