njames93 added a comment. In D97653#2675005 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D97653#2675005>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D97653#2593287 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D97653#2593287>, @njames93 wrote: > >> Where would be a good place for testing refersToDefaultCapture support? > > Thank you for your patience while I thought about this a bit more, sorry for > the delay in reviewing it! > > I think it probably makes sense to add testing for it in `clang\test\AST` > with an AST dumping test (so the text node dumper would probably need to be > updated to mention that the `DeclRefExpr` is an implicit capture). That sounds like a good place to start, thanks. ================ Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaLambda.cpp:1619 + if (Cap.isVariableCapture() && ImplicitCaptureLoc.isValid()) + cast<DeclRefExpr>(InitExpr)->setRefersToDefaultCapture(true); InitializedEntity Entity = InitializedEntity::InitializeLambdaCapture( ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > njames93 wrote: > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but there shouldn't be a case where the assert in > > cast fails. > Hmmm, could it be an unresolved lookup expr in the case of a dependent > capture? Or a `MemberExpr` in the case of capturing an anonymous structure or > union member capture? > > Because we're trying to determine if a `DeclRefExpr` was implicitly captured, > would it be better to use "implicit capture" in the identifier rather than > "default capture"? Can't capture anonymous members so thats a non issue. I'm not entirely sure about dependent, but the codepaths where isVariableCapture is true always seem to result in either an ExprError or DeclRefExpr. I do agree with the name though. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D97653/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D97653 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
