v.g.vassilev closed this revision.
v.g.vassilev added a comment.
Landed in r303432.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D32499
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
v.g.vassilev added a comment.
We were trying to come up with a test case. So far we are unsuccessful. I will
check it in as is.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D32499
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/ma
tstellar added a comment.
This is mentioned as a fix for PR31863, which is a blocker for the 4.0.1
release, is there any reason this hasn't been committed to trunk yet?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D32499
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.
rsmith accepted this revision.
rsmith added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Let's go ahead with this. I've been unable to find a testcase that triggers the
problem, but we shouldn't keep a known latent bug around just because we don't
know how to expose it yet.
http
teemperor created this revision.
As discussed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D30793, we have some unsafe calls to
`isConsumerInterestedIn()`. This patch implements Richard's suggestion (from
the inline comment) that we should track if we just deserialized an
declaration. If we just deserialized, w
