On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 1:02 PM, John McCall <[email protected]> wrote: > > On May 7, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > >> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Rafael Espindola >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Author: rafael >>> Date: Fri May 7 10:18:43 2010 >>> New Revision: 103253 >>> >>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=103253&view=rev >>> Log: >>> Fix PR4386 by implementing gcc's old behaviour (4.2) when initializing >>> variables with a comparison of a function pointer with 0. >>> >>> >>> Modified: >>> cfe/trunk/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp >>> cfe/trunk/test/Sema/init.c >>> >>> Modified: cfe/trunk/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp >>> URL: >>> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp?rev=103253&r1=103252&r2=103253&view=diff >>> ============================================================================== >>> --- cfe/trunk/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp (original) >>> +++ cfe/trunk/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp Fri May 7 10:18:43 2010 >>> @@ -70,9 +70,20 @@ >>> //===----------------------------------------------------------------------===// >>> >>> static bool EvalPointerValueAsBool(APValue& Value, bool& Result) { >>> - // FIXME: Is this accurate for all kinds of bases? If not, what would >>> - // the check look like? >>> - Result = Value.getLValueBase() || !Value.getLValueOffset().isZero(); >>> + const Expr* Base = Value.getLValueBase(); >>> + >>> + Result = Base || !Value.getLValueOffset().isZero(); >>> + >>> + const DeclRefExpr* DeclRef = dyn_cast<DeclRefExpr>(Base); >>> + if (!DeclRef) >>> + return true; >> >> Is it possible for Base to be null? > > Yes; that's how we represent null pointer lvalues.
Okay, then there is in fact a potential crash here. > (I hate this representation) You can blame me, then... but I don't see how else you could do it. -Eli _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
