baloghadamsoftware added a comment. Now I completely know what the source of our misunderstanding is. You thought that this patch will **fix** an issue, namely that we store iterator positions for both the iterator values and the locations of the iterator variables. While this is definitely a wrong approach, it could not be fixed until we got rid from the hack with `LazyCompoundVal`s. These functions **keep this existing issue** unfixed. However, I could not understand you because I was completely focusing on how these functions could **introduce a new issue** and I could not find it. No wonder. Thus all my efforts were focused on finding a test cases which passed in the earlier versions but fail in this one because of these functions. Of course I could not find any and I was continuously proving that my patch is correct in the sense that it does not make things worse than they were. That is why I implemented the pointer-based iterators (it would have been better after this patch and a subsequent one that fixes this issue) where I was facing problems because of this wrong approach. In the same time you continuously came with new examples which tried to prove the issue, but I could not understand it because all these new test cases failed in the master version as well. We talked about two very different things because we had very different perceptions about the goal of this patch. That was all.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D77229/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D77229 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
