================
@@ -5696,8 +5696,11 @@ Parser::DeclGroupPtrTy Parser::ParseTopLevelStmtDecl() {
TopLevelStmtDecl *TLSD = Actions.ActOnStartTopLevelStmtDecl(getCurScope());
StmtResult R = ParseStatementOrDeclaration(Stmts, SubStmtCtx);
Actions.ActOnFinishTopLevelStmtDecl(TLSD, R.get());
- if (!R.isUsable())
+ if (!R.isUsable()) {
+ if (DeclContext *DC = TLSD->getDeclContext())
+ DC->removeDecl(TLSD); // unlink from TU
----------------
devajithvs wrote:
Yes, we could do something like:
```diff
diff --git a/clang/lib/Interpreter/IncrementalParser.cpp
b/clang/lib/Interpreter/IncrementalParser.cpp
index 6343f17ed822..893aea55e9ab 100644
--- a/clang/lib/Interpreter/IncrementalParser.cpp
+++ b/clang/lib/Interpreter/IncrementalParser.cpp
@@ -175,6 +175,9 @@ void IncrementalParser::CleanUpPTU(TranslationUnitDecl
*MostRecentTU) {
// FIXME: We should de-allocate MostRecentTU
for (Decl *D : MostRecentTU->decls()) {
+ // Remove any TopLevelStmtDecl created for statements that failed to parse.
+ if (auto *TLSD = dyn_cast<TopLevelStmtDecl>(D))
+ if (!TLSD->getStmt())
+ MostRecentTU->removeDecl(TLSD);
auto *ND = dyn_cast<NamedDecl>(D);
if (!ND || ND->getDeclName().isEmpty())
continue;
```
Does that work?
I’m wondering, though, if we should fix this at the source: when
ParseTopLevelStmtDecl sees !R.isUsable(), we immediately unlink the
TopLevelStmtDecl we just attached. That ensures we never see a TU with an
invalid TopLevelStmtDecl between parse and cleanup.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/153945
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
