lebedev.ri added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D40737#1024120, @JonasToth wrote:
> After long inactivity (sorry!) i had a chance to look at it again: > > switch(i) { > case 0:; > case 1:; > case 2:; > ... > } > > > does *NOT* lead to the stack overflow. This is most likely an issue in the > AST: > https://godbolt.org/g/vZw2BD > > Empty case labels do nest, an empty statement prevents this. The nesting > leads most likely to the deep recursion. I will file a bug for it. FWIW here are my 5 cent: this is a preexisting bug. Your testcase just happened to expose it. I'd file the bug, and then simply adjust the testcases here not to trigger it and re-land this diff. I'm not sure what is to be gained by not doing that. Of course, the bug is a bug, and should be fixed, but it exists regardless of this differential... Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D40737 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits