================
@@ -4684,6 +4684,29 @@ LValue CodeGenFunction::EmitLValueForLambdaField(const
FieldDecl *Field,
else
LambdaLV = MakeAddrLValue(AddrOfExplicitObject,
D->getType().getNonReferenceType());
+
+ // Make sure we have an lvalue to the lambda itself and not a derived
class.
+ auto *ThisTy = D->getType().getNonReferenceType()->getAsCXXRecordDecl();
+ auto *LambdaTy = cast<CXXRecordDecl>(Field->getParent());
+ if (ThisTy != LambdaTy) {
+ CXXBasePaths Paths(/*FindAmbiguities=*/false, /*RecordPaths=*/true,
+ /*DetectVirtual=*/false);
+
+ [[maybe_unused]] bool Derived = ThisTy->isDerivedFrom(LambdaTy, Paths);
+ assert(Derived && "Type not derived from lambda type?");
----------------
Sirraide wrote:
> We can manually resolve between the `operator()`s at the call site with a
> qualified member name
Ah, that’s what I was missing.
> I think you need to open a DR with the committee.
That sounds reasonable, but I candidly have no idea how to do that.
> Please go ahead and diagnose that condition in Sema.
Will do.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/89828
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
