Aditya26189 wrote: Thanks for the review! Before I revise, I want to make sure I understand the expected behavior.
Looking at the test expectations for `gh176623()`: - **V1** with `A<tc>(p)`: Template-dependent constructor → no warning expected ✓ - **V2** with `B(p)`: Non-template-dependent constructor → warning expected ✓ However, I'm observing that generic lambda bodies (even with non-template-dependent code) may not be fully traversed by the AST matchers until instantiation. This would prevent analysis of V2's body entirely. **Question**: Should V2 produce a warning? - **If yes**: I need to investigate why the lambda body isn't being visited by the matchers. Could you confirm that the checker should analyze non-template-dependent expressions within generic lambdas? - **If no**: Should I update the test expectations so both V1 and V2 have no warnings (consistent treatment of all generic lambda parameters)? I want to ensure my fix aligns with the intended behavior before proceeding. Thanks! https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/179051 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
