aaron.ballman added a comment. In D152818#4456797 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152818#4456797>, @zahiraam wrote:
> In D152818#4456717 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152818#4456717>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> In D152818#4456510 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152818#4456510>, @zahiraam >> wrote: >> >>> In D152818#4456483 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152818#4456483>, >>> @nicolerabjohn wrote: >>> >>>> In D152818#4442116 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152818#4442116>, @rjmccall >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Does https://reviews.llvm.org/D143241 solve the original problem here, or >>>>> is there something deeper? >>>> >>>> It does not solve the problem, at least for my test case (linked in >>>> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/63063) - we still hit the >>>> assertion. >>> >>> Sorry! I will not be able to work on this until about September! I haven't >>> tried to reproduce the issue with the test case in the link above. >> >> We branch for the 17 release at the end of July, so I'm wondering whether >> there's anything we need to revert related to this? It looks like this >> assertion started firing in Clang 12.0.0 >> (https://cexplorer.testlabs.pro/z/Wh9o8W), so this doesn't seem to be a >> regression, but confirmation would be appreciated. > > The code that is generating the assertion has been introduced by this patch: > https://reviews.llvm.org/D80462 > I can checkout that commit and see if the test case fails with it? Would that > be a good experiment to do? No need -- so long as we're all agreed that we haven't regressed anything between Clang 16 and Clang 17 here, that's all I'm really after. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D152818/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D152818 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
