Ah...then I'm glad we added the assertion. :-) Lifetime-extended temporaries aren't quite implemented correctly yet, but we should probably be removing or not even adding the state when the temporary is lifetime-extended.
Unfortunately I don't have this paged in, but there's logic in processing auto destructors to handle this, and a bug (http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=19539) about how it's wrong. Jordan On Jul 7, 2014, at 13:13 , Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: > Sigh. That triggers in Analysis/dtor.cpp for this CXXBindTemporaryExpr: > CXXBindTemporaryExpr 0x3c195d8 'class > LifetimeExtension::SaveOnVirtualDestruct' (CXXTemporary 0x3c195d0) > `-CXXTemporaryObjectExpr 0x3c19590 'class > LifetimeExtension::SaveOnVirtualDestruct' 'void (void)' > > I assume something fishy is going on for lifetime extended temporaries... > > > On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jul 7, 2014, at 11:37 , Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Jul 7, 2014, at 10:50 , Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Jul 7, 2014, at 10:41 , Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Jul 7, 2014, at 10:37 , Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 7, 2014, at 10:28 , Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Can you add an assertion at the end of a block that there are no >>>>>> outstanding temporary destructors in the current stack frame? That seems >>>>>> useful. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you mean at the end of a VisitBlockDecl? >>>>> >>>>> No, during the path-sensitive run, so handleBlockExit. >>>>> >>>>> So you mean at the end of a CFG block? But here we might have outstanding >>>>> temporary dtors open (?) >>>> >>>> Oops, right. Was thinking too much in terms of AST structure. How about at >>>> the end of a function (inlined or not)? >>>> >>>> Could we say every time we transition from a block with a temp dtor >>>> terminator to a block that does not have a temp dtor terminator (or an >>>> unconditional terminator) we check? >>> >>> That sounds correct, but misses the case where we built the CFG wrong >>> (forgetting to add the branch in the correct place and thus never getting >>> to the temp dtor block at all). >>> >>> Makes sense. Do you have a hint where the right place on function exit to >>> check it would be? :) >> >> *checks* ExprEngine::processEndOfFunction. >> >> Hm, so we'll need to adjust the data structure to be indexed by stack frame >> somehow (use a map) instead of the pair<expr, stack-frame>? > > Eh, since it's an assertion I'd be fine with just iterating over it in a > helper function. Or better, using std::find_if (if it has proper begin/end > members). >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
