erichkeane wrote: > > This once again looks like an attempt at hacking around our lack of delayed > > lambda body instantiation... And this one has some pretty sizable negatives > > as far as I can see. I'm not sure I really like this direction. > > Yeah, admittedly this is another workaround of not having that mechanism. But > the bug was a 15 regression, (which means we don't have to rely on that for > it to work!) and due to some historic incorrect patches (which I'm fixing > here) it ends up becoming hard to get the behavior correct as 14.
Oh, totally understood. This is just a 'stuck between a rock and a hard place' sort of situation, and I'm pretty uncomfortable here again. I wouldn't be able to convince you to start work on the delayed lambda body instantiation instead, would I ? :-P https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/134038 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
