hokein added a comment. In D135257#3836511 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D135257#3836511>, @ilya-biryukov wrote:
> Having `nullptr` inside `children()` seems really weird. Should we fix those > instead to never produce `nullptr`? Or is this something that is expected (I > can come up with a few contracts where this would make sense, but that all > looks really akward). I'm not too surprised to see this, given the code action is widely triggered (on broken code). It would be nice that clang never produce a nullptr, but we're not in a perfect world. And there are other places (e.g. <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/lib/Sema/SemaExceptionSpec.cpp#L998>) in the code base doing this nullptr check. So to me, this patch is an improvement making clangd more robust, it looks good from my side. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D135257/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D135257 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
