Fznamznon added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaOverload.cpp:14001 + + if (FnDecl->isInvalidDecl()) + return ExprError(); ---------------- shafik wrote: > Fznamznon wrote: > > shafik wrote: > > > shafik wrote: > > > > It feels a bit weird that we are succeeding in finding the best viable > > > > function and what we find is invalid. > > > It looks like we have a couple of test that generate the `cannot be > > > variadic` diagnostic for overloads e.g. > > > `clang/test/SemaCXX/overloaded-operator-decl.cpp` it might be worth > > > looking into why they don't crash and this case does. > > Yes, but it seems to be done this way in other places as well: > > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/0478ef2d366c6f88678e37d54190dcdaa0ec69da/clang/lib/Sema/SemaOverload.cpp#L15145 > > . > I see that but that diagnostic looks like it is generated by the call to > `CheckMemberOperatorAccess(...)` which is not really the same situation we > have here. We crash when ask functiondecl its second parameter and it doesn't have it when the call expression is formed. The cases from tests do not crash either because the operators are not used or there is at least two parameters defined in declaration of operator. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D156244/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D156244 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
