On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 6:39 PM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 1:20 AM, Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +dblakie >> >> On Thu Nov 13 2014 at 1:53:39 AM Alexander Kornienko <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Thank you for the analysis and the proposed solution! >>> >>> I can reproduce the issue (with any q.cpp that is not clang-tidy clean): >>> >>> $ clang-tidy q.cpp -- --serialize-diagnostics test.dia >>> *** Error in `clang_tidy': free(): invalid pointer: 0x00007fffa65bb4d8 >>> *** >>> Aborted (core dumped) >>> >>> >>> The patch seems correct to me and the way to distinguish between owning >>> and non-owning constructors seems also fine. I'll commit the patch tomorrow >>> if nobody offers a better solution. >>> >> >> I don't really see anything better under the current restrictions. >> Perhaps David has an idea, he has done a lot of the unique_ptr migrations >> in llvm. >> > > At a cursory glance, this is the "conditional ownership" issue that's come > up in a few places (and currently we have solutions that both look like > this one (T*+unique_ptr<T> where the latter may be null but otherwise they > both point to the same object) or bool+T* where the bool indicates > ownership) > > There is a thread on llvm/cfe-dev about whether we should introduce a > reusable "conditional ownership" pointer, but the response from several > people (Manuel, Chandler, and, depending on the day of the week, myself, > etc) is that this kind of ownership complication is a bug in the design > which we should fix at the source. > > I'm still not sure if that's the case (that all cases of conditional > ownership like this are design bugs) - but I'm sort of curious to see how > they would look if we really tried to apply that logic. > > As a side note: this patch looks way too subtle/dangerous as-is, even > given the necessary conditional ownership semantics. Two branches of the > if, one calls func(takeX()) the other calls func(unique_ptr<T>(takeX()) - > that's pretty subtle (even though the "ownsClient" condition demonstrates > what's going on there). > > I'm not sure how much it's worth making this a bit tidier/more reliable > (maybe Diags::takeClient should return a unique_ptr and just return null > whenever !Diags.ownsClient() - and have a separate "getClient" function > that can be called to get a raw pointer, regardless of ownership (careful > if we have an ordering issue there - if takeClient nulls out the Diags' > client, then we'd need to call 'get' before 'take', if takeClient just sets > "OwnsClient" to false, then we can call them in either order)) - or if it's > just going to be a bit lame until we go the whole way and remove the > conditional ownership of the DiagnosticConsumer all the way up (or add a > first class maybe-owning pointer type). > Yeah, there are too many possible options here and ideally, it would be nice to unify all cases of conditional ownership or eliminate them. I suppose, that the latter may be rather difficult to make as the scope of the change may be wide and affect many public interfaces. But in any case, we need a centralized decision on what we want to do with the conditional ownership. As for this patch, it should use the already existing getClient() function in the non-owning branch. I can commit a fix. > > > - David > > >> >> >>> >>> -- Alex >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Aaron Wishnick < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Understanding the bug better, I've attached a patch that more correctly >>>> fixes this bug, by teaching ChainedDiagnosticConsumer how to not take >>>> ownership of one of its arguments, and having SetupSerializedDiagnostics() >>>> use it. Is there a more idiomatic way, in the LLVM project, of a "maybe" >>>> owning pointer? I see that some related functions take a "ShouldOwnClient" >>>> argument, but this seems a little more kludgy for two arguments with >>>> separate ownership. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Aaron >>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Aaron Wishnick < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Alexander, sorry to dig up an old issue, but I've just gotten some >>>>> more time to look into it. This is still reproducing for me on trunk, and >>>>> I >>>>> can see where the ChainedDiagnosticConsumer is created, as well as why it >>>>> ends up trying to free a stack object. In short, there's a function >>>>> SetupSerializedDiagnostics() in CompilerInstance.cpp that doesn't know how >>>>> to handle the case where its DiagnosticsEngine doesn't own its client. >>>>> This >>>>> bug can be reproduced by using clang-tidy with a compilation database that >>>>> uses the "--serialize-diagnostics" flag. >>>>> >>>>> When I run a debug build with the arguments "clang-tidy -p >>>>> /path/to/compile_commands.json /path/to/source.cpp", I get a failed assert >>>>> in tools/clang/lib/Frontend/CompilerInstance.cpp, line 173, in >>>>> SetupSerializedDiagnostics(): >>>>> >>>>> static void SetupSerializedDiagnostics(DiagnosticOptions *DiagOpts, >>>>> DiagnosticsEngine &Diags, >>>>> StringRef OutputFile) { >>>>> auto SerializedConsumer = >>>>> clang::serialized_diags::create(OutputFile, DiagOpts); >>>>> >>>>> assert(Diags.ownsClient()); >>>>> Diags.setClient(new ChainedDiagnosticConsumer( >>>>> std::unique_ptr<DiagnosticConsumer>(Diags.takeClient()), >>>>> std::move(SerializedConsumer))); >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> Stepping one stack frame up into createDiagnostics(), it looks like >>>>> this code path is hit because the "if >>>>> (!Opts->DiagnosticSerializationFile.empty())" condition on line 209 of >>>>> CompilerInstance.cpp is met. >>>>> >>>>> If I skip that assert, and continue, I get that same "pointer being >>>>> freed was not allocated" error, once the program finishes and the >>>>> ChainedDiagnosticConsumer is deleted. The address is from the stack, >>>>> rather >>>>> than the heap, and it corresponds to the value of "Diags.Client" before >>>>> that call to "Diags.takeClient()." In other words, I think the problem is >>>>> that the DiagnosticsEngine passed into SetupSerializedDiagnostics doesn't >>>>> own its client, and the client is stack allocated, and then the client is >>>>> stored in a unique_ptr which is owned by the ChainedDiagnosticConsumer. >>>>> >>>>> Ultimately, I can see this comes from ClangTidy.cpp, line 470. This >>>>> ClangTidyDiagnosticConsumer is created on the stack, and is the one that >>>>> eventually ends up being freed, causing the bug. >>>>> >>>>> I am using this in conjunction with Xcode: I am using xcodebuild to >>>>> build my project, and then oclint-xcodebuild to generate the >>>>> compile_commands.json database. Sure enough, all of the commands in the >>>>> compilation database include the argument "--serialize-diagnostics >>>>> /path/to/source.dia". If I remove these arguments, this bug doesn't occur. >>>>> So, I think the issue is that SetupSerializedDiagnostics doesn't know how >>>>> to handle the case where the DiagnosticsEngine doesn't own its client. >>>>> >>>>> Hope this helps! >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Aaron >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Alexander Kornienko < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Alexander Kornienko < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Aaron Wishnick < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When I run clang-tidy on OS X 10.9.3, I immediately get this output: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> clang-tidy(97903,0x7fff782fb310) malloc: *** error for object >>>>>>>> 0x7fff5fbfecd0: pointer being freed was not allocated >>>>>>>> *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This occurs inside the destructor of ClangTidyDiagnosticConsumer. >>>>>>>> Here's my callstack: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> #4 0x000000010058e3e2 in ~ClangTidyDiagnosticConsumer at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/tools/clang/tools/extra/clang-tidy/ClangTidyDiagnosticConsumer.h:190 >>>>>>>> #5 0x0000000100656a73 in >>>>>>>> std::__1::default_delete<clang::DiagnosticConsumer>::operator()(clang::DiagnosticConsumer*) >>>>>>>> const [inlined] at >>>>>>>> /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin/../lib/c++/v1/memory:2426 >>>>>>>> #6 0x0000000100656a4b in >>>>>>>> std::__1::unique_ptr<clang::DiagnosticConsumer, >>>>>>>> std::__1::default_delete<clang::DiagnosticConsumer> >>>>>>>> >::reset(clang::DiagnosticConsumer*) [inlined] at >>>>>>>> /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin/../lib/c++/v1/memory:2625 >>>>>>>> #7 0x00000001006569f5 in ~unique_ptr [inlined] at >>>>>>>> /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin/../lib/c++/v1/memory:2593 >>>>>>>> #8 0x00000001006569f5 in ~unique_ptr [inlined] at >>>>>>>> /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin/../lib/c++/v1/memory:2593 >>>>>>>> #9 0x00000001006569f5 in ~ChainedDiagnosticConsumer at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/tools/clang/include/clang/Frontend/ChainedDiagnosticConsumer.h:23 >>>>>>>> #10 0x0000000100656595 in ~ChainedDiagnosticConsumer at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/tools/clang/include/clang/Frontend/ChainedDiagnosticConsumer.h:23 >>>>>>>> #11 0x00000001006565b9 in ~ChainedDiagnosticConsumer at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/tools/clang/include/clang/Frontend/ChainedDiagnosticConsumer.h:23 >>>>>>>> #12 0x00000001015eec84 in ~DiagnosticsEngine at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Basic/Diagnostic.cpp:68 >>>>>>>> #13 0x00000001015eec35 in ~DiagnosticsEngine at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Basic/Diagnostic.cpp:66 >>>>>>>> #14 0x00000001006bd3d3 in >>>>>>>> llvm::RefCountedBase<clang::DiagnosticsEngine>::Release() const at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/IntrusiveRefCntPtr.h:55 >>>>>>>> #15 0x00000001006bd325 in >>>>>>>> llvm::IntrusiveRefCntPtrInfo<clang::DiagnosticsEngine>::release(clang::DiagnosticsEngine*) >>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/IntrusiveRefCntPtr.h:90 >>>>>>>> #16 0x00000001006bd2fd in >>>>>>>> llvm::IntrusiveRefCntPtr<clang::DiagnosticsEngine>::release() at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/IntrusiveRefCntPtr.h:199 >>>>>>>> #17 0x00000001006bd2c5 in ~IntrusiveRefCntPtr at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/IntrusiveRefCntPtr.h:172 >>>>>>>> #18 0x00000001006bbe15 in ~IntrusiveRefCntPtr at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/IntrusiveRefCntPtr.h:172 >>>>>>>> #19 0x000000010065cbc1 in ~CompilerInstance at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Frontend/CompilerInstance.cpp:63 >>>>>>>> #20 0x000000010065c505 in ~CompilerInstance at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Frontend/CompilerInstance.cpp:61 >>>>>>>> #21 0x00000001005d6474 in >>>>>>>> clang::tooling::FrontendActionFactory::runInvocation(clang::CompilerInvocation*, >>>>>>>> clang::FileManager*, clang::DiagnosticConsumer*) at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Tooling/Tooling.cpp:270 >>>>>>>> #22 0x00000001005d614f in >>>>>>>> clang::tooling::ToolInvocation::runInvocation(char const*, >>>>>>>> clang::driver::Compilation*, clang::CompilerInvocation*) at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Tooling/Tooling.cpp:243 >>>>>>>> #23 0x00000001005d5290 in clang::tooling::ToolInvocation::run() at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Tooling/Tooling.cpp:229 >>>>>>>> #24 0x00000001005d7b29 in >>>>>>>> clang::tooling::ClangTool::run(clang::tooling::ToolAction*) at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Tooling/Tooling.cpp:360 >>>>>>>> #25 0x0000000100566cd2 in >>>>>>>> clang::tidy::runClangTidy(clang::tidy::ClangTidyOptionsProvider*, >>>>>>>> clang::tooling::CompilationDatabase const&, >>>>>>>> llvm::ArrayRef<std::__1::basic_string<char, >>>>>>>> std::__1::char_traits<char>, >>>>>>>> std::__1::allocator<char> > >, >>>>>>>> std::__1::vector<clang::tidy::ClangTidyError, >>>>>>>> std::__1::allocator<clang::tidy::ClangTidyError> >*) at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/tools/clang/tools/extra/clang-tidy/ClangTidy.cpp:345 >>>>>>>> #26 0x0000000100002a96 in main at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/tools/clang/tools/extra/clang-tidy/tool/ClangTidyMain.cpp:145 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In short, it appears that ClangTool takes ownership of the >>>>>>>> diagnostic consumer, but it's being allocated on the stack. My fix is >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> allocate it on the heap instead. I've attached my patch. Please let me >>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>> if this assessment is incorrect, or if you'd like me to go about this >>>>>>>> differently. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, the ownership of the diagnostic consumer shouldn't be >>>>>>> transferred, and I don't see any evidence >>>>>>> ClangTool::setDiagnosticConsumer >>>>>>> expects this to happen. This all looks strange, and I'm investigating >>>>>>> this. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I wasn't able to reproduce this crash. Your stack trace has >>>>>> ChainedDiagnosticConsumer in it, which afaiu, it is only used twice in >>>>>> Clang, and both places don't seem to be unrelated to clang-tidy. Could >>>>>> you >>>>>> set a breakpoint in ChainedDiagnosticConsumer constructor and send me the >>>>>> stack trace where it gets called in clang-tidy? (or add an >>>>>> "assert(false);" >>>>>> there to get the stack trace on the console in the assertions-enabled >>>>>> build) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>> Aaron >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> cfe-commits mailing list >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Alexander Kornienko < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Alexander Kornienko < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Aaron Wishnick < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When I run clang-tidy on OS X 10.9.3, I immediately get this output: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> clang-tidy(97903,0x7fff782fb310) malloc: *** error for object >>>>>>>> 0x7fff5fbfecd0: pointer being freed was not allocated >>>>>>>> *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This occurs inside the destructor of ClangTidyDiagnosticConsumer. >>>>>>>> Here's my callstack: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> #4 0x000000010058e3e2 in ~ClangTidyDiagnosticConsumer at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/tools/clang/tools/extra/clang-tidy/ClangTidyDiagnosticConsumer.h:190 >>>>>>>> #5 0x0000000100656a73 in >>>>>>>> std::__1::default_delete<clang::DiagnosticConsumer>::operator()(clang::DiagnosticConsumer*) >>>>>>>> const [inlined] at >>>>>>>> /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin/../lib/c++/v1/memory:2426 >>>>>>>> #6 0x0000000100656a4b in >>>>>>>> std::__1::unique_ptr<clang::DiagnosticConsumer, >>>>>>>> std::__1::default_delete<clang::DiagnosticConsumer> >>>>>>>> >::reset(clang::DiagnosticConsumer*) [inlined] at >>>>>>>> /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin/../lib/c++/v1/memory:2625 >>>>>>>> #7 0x00000001006569f5 in ~unique_ptr [inlined] at >>>>>>>> /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin/../lib/c++/v1/memory:2593 >>>>>>>> #8 0x00000001006569f5 in ~unique_ptr [inlined] at >>>>>>>> /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin/../lib/c++/v1/memory:2593 >>>>>>>> #9 0x00000001006569f5 in ~ChainedDiagnosticConsumer at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/tools/clang/include/clang/Frontend/ChainedDiagnosticConsumer.h:23 >>>>>>>> #10 0x0000000100656595 in ~ChainedDiagnosticConsumer at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/tools/clang/include/clang/Frontend/ChainedDiagnosticConsumer.h:23 >>>>>>>> #11 0x00000001006565b9 in ~ChainedDiagnosticConsumer at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/tools/clang/include/clang/Frontend/ChainedDiagnosticConsumer.h:23 >>>>>>>> #12 0x00000001015eec84 in ~DiagnosticsEngine at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Basic/Diagnostic.cpp:68 >>>>>>>> #13 0x00000001015eec35 in ~DiagnosticsEngine at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Basic/Diagnostic.cpp:66 >>>>>>>> #14 0x00000001006bd3d3 in >>>>>>>> llvm::RefCountedBase<clang::DiagnosticsEngine>::Release() const at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/IntrusiveRefCntPtr.h:55 >>>>>>>> #15 0x00000001006bd325 in >>>>>>>> llvm::IntrusiveRefCntPtrInfo<clang::DiagnosticsEngine>::release(clang::DiagnosticsEngine*) >>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/IntrusiveRefCntPtr.h:90 >>>>>>>> #16 0x00000001006bd2fd in >>>>>>>> llvm::IntrusiveRefCntPtr<clang::DiagnosticsEngine>::release() at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/IntrusiveRefCntPtr.h:199 >>>>>>>> #17 0x00000001006bd2c5 in ~IntrusiveRefCntPtr at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/IntrusiveRefCntPtr.h:172 >>>>>>>> #18 0x00000001006bbe15 in ~IntrusiveRefCntPtr at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/IntrusiveRefCntPtr.h:172 >>>>>>>> #19 0x000000010065cbc1 in ~CompilerInstance at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Frontend/CompilerInstance.cpp:63 >>>>>>>> #20 0x000000010065c505 in ~CompilerInstance at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Frontend/CompilerInstance.cpp:61 >>>>>>>> #21 0x00000001005d6474 in >>>>>>>> clang::tooling::FrontendActionFactory::runInvocation(clang::CompilerInvocation*, >>>>>>>> clang::FileManager*, clang::DiagnosticConsumer*) at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Tooling/Tooling.cpp:270 >>>>>>>> #22 0x00000001005d614f in >>>>>>>> clang::tooling::ToolInvocation::runInvocation(char const*, >>>>>>>> clang::driver::Compilation*, clang::CompilerInvocation*) at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Tooling/Tooling.cpp:243 >>>>>>>> #23 0x00000001005d5290 in clang::tooling::ToolInvocation::run() at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Tooling/Tooling.cpp:229 >>>>>>>> #24 0x00000001005d7b29 in >>>>>>>> clang::tooling::ClangTool::run(clang::tooling::ToolAction*) at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Tooling/Tooling.cpp:360 >>>>>>>> #25 0x0000000100566cd2 in >>>>>>>> clang::tidy::runClangTidy(clang::tidy::ClangTidyOptionsProvider*, >>>>>>>> clang::tooling::CompilationDatabase const&, >>>>>>>> llvm::ArrayRef<std::__1::basic_string<char, >>>>>>>> std::__1::char_traits<char>, >>>>>>>> std::__1::allocator<char> > >, >>>>>>>> std::__1::vector<clang::tidy::ClangTidyError, >>>>>>>> std::__1::allocator<clang::tidy::ClangTidyError> >*) at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/tools/clang/tools/extra/clang-tidy/ClangTidy.cpp:345 >>>>>>>> #26 0x0000000100002a96 in main at >>>>>>>> /Users/awishnick/clang-tidy/llvm/tools/clang/tools/extra/clang-tidy/tool/ClangTidyMain.cpp:145 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In short, it appears that ClangTool takes ownership of the >>>>>>>> diagnostic consumer, but it's being allocated on the stack. My fix is >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> allocate it on the heap instead. I've attached my patch. Please let me >>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>> if this assessment is incorrect, or if you'd like me to go about this >>>>>>>> differently. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, the ownership of the diagnostic consumer shouldn't be >>>>>>> transferred, and I don't see any evidence >>>>>>> ClangTool::setDiagnosticConsumer >>>>>>> expects this to happen. This all looks strange, and I'm investigating >>>>>>> this. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I wasn't able to reproduce this crash. Your stack trace has >>>>>> ChainedDiagnosticConsumer in it, which afaiu, it is only used twice in >>>>>> Clang, and both places don't seem to be unrelated to clang-tidy. Could >>>>>> you >>>>>> set a breakpoint in ChainedDiagnosticConsumer constructor and send me the >>>>>> stack trace where it gets called in clang-tidy? (or add an >>>>>> "assert(false);" >>>>>> there to get the stack trace on the console in the assertions-enabled >>>>>> build) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>> Aaron >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>> cfe-commits mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
