lebedev.ri added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D40737#1024120, @JonasToth wrote:
> After long inactivity (sorry!) i had a chance to look at it again:
>
> switch(i) {
> case 0:;
> case 1:;
> case 2:;
> ...
> }
>
>
> does *NOT* lead to the stack overflow. This is most likely an issue in the
> AST:
> https://godbolt.org/g/vZw2BD
>
> Empty case labels do nest, an empty statement prevents this. The nesting
> leads most likely to the deep recursion. I will file a bug for it.
FWIW here are my 5 cent: this is a preexisting bug. Your testcase just happened
to expose it.
I'd file the bug, and then simply adjust the testcases here not to trigger it
and re-land this diff.
I'm not sure what is to be gained by not doing that.
Of course, the bug is a bug, and should be fixed, but it exists regardless of
this differential...
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D40737
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
