aaron.ballman added a comment.
In D82940#2125183 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D82940#2125183>, @riccibruno wrote:
> > I'm not certain I understand, but I'm removing my LG while we figure it
> > out. Can you expound a bit further?
>
> Take a look at the AST dump of a small modification of the reduced test case
> which doesn't trigger the assertion:
>
> void should_not_crash_with_switch_in_lambda() {
> switch (1)
> default:;
> auto f = [] {
> switch (1)
> default:;
> };
> }
>
>
> Before the serialization of `LambdaExpr` for the `LambdaExpr *E`, we have
> `E->getBody() == E->getCallOperator()->getBody()`.
> After serialization this is not true anymore because we are writing and
> reading the body directly when visiting the `LambdaExpr`
> (the captures have the same problem).
Ah, thank you for the explanation! That does seem like an issue, good catch.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D82940/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D82940
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
