ChuanqiXu added a comment. In D41416#4496293 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D41416#4496293>, @v.g.vassilev wrote:
> In D41416#4492367 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D41416#4492367>, @v.g.vassilev > wrote: > >> Address most of the comments. I will need some help with the >> `Modules/pr60085.cppm` failure. I suspect we pass to CodeGen some >> instantiation by iterator index and that does not work as the instantiations >> are lazily triggered upon use now. > > In fact it looks like it fails exactly in the same way as described in the > original report https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/60085. The commit > message in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/78e48977a6e67 hints at > the fact that the issue was gone surprisingly. I suspect that test case > stopped reproducing the underlying issue by chance. That probably means that > this patch is not breaking anything but exposing an underlying problem... Got it. I understand it is frustrating to fix an additional bug during development. Also it is generally not good to revert a valid test case. Are you in a hurry to land this recently? (e.g., land this for clang17) If not, I suggest to wait for me to fix the underlying issue after clang17 gets released. And if I take too long to fix it (e.g, 9.30), given the speciality of the patch, I think we can revert that test case and land this one that time. How do you feel about the idea? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D41416/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D41416 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
