gribozavr2 added a comment. In D76761#1941380 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D76761#1941380>, @njames93 wrote:
> In D76761#1941070 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D76761#1941070>, @gribozavr2 > wrote: > > > Could you provide more information about why these null checks are needed > > in this case? > > > Well the fact it was crashing without those null checks was the reason they > were added. I'm not 100% sure of the root cause and this could just be a case > of applying a plaster to a broken arm. I'm guessing the root cause of the > crash is the fact the callee is a `CXXMethodDecl` which is not being handled > but I honestly don't know. Right -- what I meant is a more detailed description of why, for example, `tryGetCallExprAncestorForCxxConstructExpr` can't find the `CallExpr` in this case -- is it not there, or does it not have the expected shape, or something else? What does the AST look like? I'm worried about adding defensive checks because they can make code more difficult to fix in future. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D76761/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D76761 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
