zyn0217 wrote:
Thinking more, I still maintain that the check for `ParentFD` is redundant.
So, suppose we need to find a case to compromise the previous logic. In that
case, we need to find a generic lambda whose `Pattern` is defined inside a
function (i.e. `Pattern` is non-null) while its
zyn0217 wrote:
So, here is the offending case:
```cpp
template
concept True = true;
template
using MeowMeow = decltype([](U...) {}.template operator()(U()...));
void foo() {
using T = MeowMeow;
}
```
In this example, the lambda does not have the `TypeAliasTemplateDecl` where it
is
https://github.com/RKSimon closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96888
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
RKSimon wrote:
Cheers - I'll push this (without the assert) in a moment - that shouldn't get
in the way of working out why they aren't always paired.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96888
___
cfe-commits mailing list
https://github.com/RKSimon updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96888
>From 7f6614d8df9a5ed2027f90d813695bc43f1044b2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Simon Pilgrim
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 11:09:32 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] [Sema] LambdaScopeForCallOperatorInstantiationRAII - fix typo
0x59616e wrote:
Thanks for this fix!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96888
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/0x59616e approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96888
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
0x59616e wrote:
This is indeed a typo.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96888
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
zyn0217 wrote:
Looks like we have hit the assert in
`SemaTemplate/alias-template-with-lambdas.cpp`. I brought that dirty test, and
I'll take a look this weekend.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96888
___
cfe-commits mailing list
RKSimon wrote:
It would probably explain why the typo hasn't caused regression - I'm going off
static analysis reports here, not crash reports.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96888
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://github.com/zyn0217 commented:
Thanks for the patch.
While I think this makes sense, it still confuses me whether there was some
redundancy in the guard condition. Do we have any situation where `Pattern` is
non-null whereas `ParentFD` becomes null? I assume they are always paired, at
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
Author: Simon Pilgrim (RKSimon)
Changes
We should be checking for a failed dyn_cast on the ParentFD result - not the
loop invariant FD root value.
Seems to have been introduced in #65193
Noticed by static analyser (I have no specific test
https://github.com/RKSimon created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96888
We should be checking for a failed dyn_cast on the ParentFD result - not the
loop invariant FD root value.
Seems to have been introduced in #65193
Noticed by static analyser (I have no specific test case).
13 matches
Mail list logo
