redcode wrote:
Is this FIXME OK?
```c
void Sema::ActOnLambdaExpressionAfterIntroducer(LambdaIntroducer &Intro,
Scope *CurrentScope) {
/* ... */
// Determine if we're within a context where we know that the lambda will
// be dependent, because there are template parameters in scope.
//
// FIXME: A lambda in the noexcept specifier of an abbreviated function
// template (e.g. `auto&&`) is not marked dependent, even though it captures
// a dependent entity. Could this be because the implicit template parameter
// is not in scope while the specifier is parsed, leaving the lambda's
// dependency kind as LDK_Unknown?
// See: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/232874
```
<img width="692" height="525" alt="imagen"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/efc6a4ca-88f0-4276-9357-6cc1fc9a5c9b";
/>
As for adding the `assert`... I just realized that the CI would then fail on
this PR. Should this PR therefore remain open until another one is merged that
fixes the bug in Sema?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/232986
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
