================
@@ -1648,8 +1648,11 @@ SourceLocation CallExpr::getBeginLoc() const {
if (const auto *Method =
dyn_cast_if_present<const CXXMethodDecl>(getCalleeDecl());
Method && Method->isExplicitObjectMemberFunction()) {
- assert(getNumArgs() > 0 && getArg(0));
- return getArg(0)->getBeginLoc();
+ if (!isTypeDependent()) {
+ assert(getNumArgs() > 0 && getArg(0));
+ if (getNumArgs() > 0 && getArg(0))
----------------
HighCommander4 wrote:
I agree with these arguments against checking an asserted condition **in
general**.
However, I think in this case it might make sense, for two reasons:
1. My level of confidence that "((callee is an explicit object member
function) and (call is not dependent)) implies (call has a first argument)" is
in fact an invariant is not very high.
2. The impact of hiding a bug here is fairly low (slightly inaccurate source
range, likely to only affect tools like clangd which perform hit-testing on the
AST) compared to a production crash.
I'm happy to remove the check if you feel that's the right tradeoff in spite of
these considerations, but I wanted to call them out.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/126868
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
