aaron.ballman added a comment. In D146634#4215754 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D146634#4215754>, @kadircet wrote:
> I am aware that this null checking at leaves are not considered a sustainable > solution and I agree with the sentiment there. But we're seeing an increasing > number of crashes in production on invalid code recently. Happy to take a > different course if there are alternatives, but as also explained in D146426 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/D146426>, the situation around parameter lists > having nullptrs seem to be the state for a long time now, e.g: > > template <typename T> auto x = [](__fp16) {}; > decltype(x<int>); > > is a reproducer that crashes even clang-12 due to a nullptr in the paremeter > list. Surely it'd be better to fix this invariant, but I am afraid we don't > know how to do that immediately and considering people have been dealing with > this situation by adding null checks into the places that triggered crashes > ever since, I'd like to move forward with this fix until someone can figure > out the situation. IMO, if the increasing number of crashes is a concern, now is the time to fix it properly instead of continuing to play whack-a-mole. To me, "fix it properly" means ensuring that we don't have null AST nodes, but if during investigation there's a more foundational problem that prevents us from doing that, we can make a different decision once we have more information. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D146634/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D146634 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
