azmat-y wrote:
> I’m not convinced this is the right approach; what if we have e.g.
>
> ```c++
> template <typename ... T>
> void foo(T... Params) {
> ([&]{ Params ?: 1; }(), ...);
> }
> ```
> will look into handling it in ActOnCXXFoldExpr instead and see if that helps
> We still crash on this and I’m sure `commonExpr` would still be
> pack-dependent in this case, but we don’t want this to become invalid.
>
> I wonder if we should just delete the assertion in
> `computeDependence(OpaqueValueExpr*)`.
Commenting out the assert doesn't affect the test suite (check-clang), the
tests still pass though I am unaware about any other implications of removing
the assert.
I thought of handling it through ActOnCXXFoldExpr earlier but the simpler case
provided in the issue is not a fold at all, yet we still crash. I'll update
when I think of another approach.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/164019
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
