On May 8, 2012, at 6:18 PM, Meador Inge wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> In PR 12746 a failing assertion was reported when mixing blocks and lambdas.
> The original reproduction case looked something like:
>
> void foo(int *x)
> {
> ^() {
> [&]() {
> return x == 0;
> }();
> }();
> }
>
> The following assert in 'clang::CodeGenFunction::EmitDeclRefLValue' was
> failing
> because the variable declaration referenced in 'E' was not in the
> 'LocalDeclMap'
> and was not marked as referring to an enclosing local:
>
> assert(isa<BlockDecl>(CurCodeDecl) && E->refersToEnclosingLocal());
>
> This problem has been fixed by ensuring that the 'DeclRefExpr' gets marked as
> referring to an enclosing local as it should be.
>
> While investigating this issue I noticed that the reverse nesting fails too,
> but for a different reason:
>
> void foo(int *x)
> {
> [&]() {
> ^() {
> return x == 0;
> }();
> }();
> }
>
> This time 'clang::CodeGen::CodeGenFunction::EmitBlockLiteral' goes to lookup
> the capture information for the nested parameter 'x', but crashes because it
> is actually nested in a lambda and the 'BlockInfo' is NULL. This was fixed
> by
> adding a check to ensure 'BlockInfo' is not NULL.
>
> OK?
I simplified the patch a bit and committed as r156925/156926. Essentially, we
can compute whether the DeclRefExpr refers to an enclosing local directly in
tryCaptureVariable, so it doesn't need to be passed down.
Also, I moved the new test cases into the appropriate place
(test/CXX/expr/expr.prim/expr.prim.lambda) and turned them into tests of IR
generation, since the normal "-verify" only does semantic analysis.
Thank you!
- Doug
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
