njames93 added a comment. In D76761#1941476 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D76761#1941476>, @gribozavr2 wrote:
> Right -- what I meant is a more detailed description of why, for example, > `tryGetCallExprAncestorForCxxConstructExpr` can't find the `CallExpr` in this > case -- is it not there, or does it not have the expected shape, or something > else? What does the AST look like? > > I'm worried about adding defensive checks because they can make code more > difficult to fix in future. To be honest the whole fix that caused the crash in the first place was a mess, I have decided to fix this by checking if the parent is a temporary expr bound to an r value, as well as removing the hacky looking code from the previous patch. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D76761/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D76761 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
