dblaikie added a comment. In D123319#3486544 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D123319#3486544>, @dblaikie wrote:
> In D123319#3474997 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D123319#3474997>, @dblaikie > wrote: > >> In D123319#3473693 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D123319#3473693>, @shafik wrote: >> >>> In D123319#3473283 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D123319#3473283>, @dblaikie >>> wrote: >>> >>>> ('scuse the delay) >>>> >>>> Baseline: I'm still not really sure this is the right direction. Is there >>>> a sound argument for why this change is suitable for lambdas, but not for >>>> other types? I believe all the situations that can happen with other types >>>> can happen with lambdas (& the other way around) with sufficiently >>>> interestingly crafted inputs. >>> >>> I had a couple of approaches but once I saw how gcc was handling it, I just >>> went with consistency with gcc. I might have been missing some cases but I >>> did not have other test case that I ran into issues with. >> >> What's the basic reproduction of the issue? Using that I can probably >> produce a non-lambda example that tickles the same bug & demonstrates why >> this should be generalized and/or fixed in lldb instead. > > Ping on this ^ Any update/further details here? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D123319/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D123319 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
