alexfh added a comment.
Please add a test that crashes without the patch and passes with it.
Repository:
rL LLVM
http://reviews.llvm.org/D15797
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
mattsta added a comment.
It's difficult to track down *why* the invalid locations are happening because
by the time we get to an invalid location, all source location information is
lost. The best I've been able to come up with is fixing the early return
conditions (which were previously impos
mattsta updated this revision to Diff 43748.
mattsta added a comment.
Updated to include fix for:
Assertion failed: (InitialLoc.isValid()), function checkStmt, file
../llvm/tools/clang/tools/extra/clang-tidy/readability/BracesAroundStatementsCheck.cpp,
line 226.
Repository:
rL LLVM
http:
alexfh added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D15797#317793, @mattsta wrote:
> It's difficult to track down *why* the invalid locations are happening
> because by the time we get to an invalid location, all source location
> information is lost. The best I've been able to come up with is
mattsta added a comment.
Yeah, I fully understand the need to make sure it doesn't break again (or that
this actually fixes it properly), but these changes are about the limit of my
LLVM+Tidy internals understanding. (What's missing from this diff is the 20
hours across 4-6 months where I trie
alexfh added a comment.
An alternative fix has recently been committed. Can you run clang-tidy built
after r260505 on your code?
Repository:
rL LLVM
http://reviews.llvm.org/D15797
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://li
