Mordante marked an inline comment as done.
Mordante added a comment.
I added `void g()` since that's valid code which also caused an assertion
failure. So the issue isn't in the error recovery but in determining the
required IntRange. It seems the code doesn't take
http://eel.is/c++draft/expr.cond#2.1 into account.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp:10164
const BuiltinType *BT = cast<BuiltinType>(T);
- assert(BT->isInteger());
+ if (!BT->isInteger()) {
+ // This can happen in a conditional expression with a throw statement
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> Can we handle this in code that's specific to conditional expressions
> instead? Presumably somewhere higher up in the call graph, some code is
> assuming that it can recurse from a conditional expression to its
> subexpressions, and that assumption is wrong.
I can take a look at it if you want. However I feel this fix is better. If the
conditional doesn't throw it can properly evaluate the required IntRange. If it
throws the range doesn't matter, therefore I didn't want to increment the
required range.
Do you agree?
Should I add more comment to clarify the design decission?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D85601/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D85601
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
