aaron.ballman added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D49158#1172178, @juliehockett wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D49158#1159882, @hokein wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D49158#1158327, @JonasToth wrote: > > > > > Is there a way to add a test, that would trigger the old segfault and > > > show that it does not happen anymore with this fix? > > > > > > +1, we should have a minimal test case for this fix, > > https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36150 provides a case, but we need to > > reduce it (getting rid of the STD header). > > > Does anyone know of a case where the base would not be a CXXRecordDecl that > doesn't involve std::functional? (for background, I could only reproduce the > error in the test case in https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36150 on a > Mac) Perhaps something like: template <typename Ty> struct S : Ty { S(Ty Fn) : Ty(Fn) {} }; void f() { S s{[](){}}; } Not certain if this is what you're looking for, but it is a trick used in <functional> implementations sometimes. https://reviews.llvm.org/D49158 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
