On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Abramo Bagnara <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> In r205915 you've added to ThreadSafetyTIL.h a mechanism to avoid >> explicit delete for SExpr, but this break compilation with REQUIRES_EH=1 >> as shown below: >> >> $ make VERBOSE=1 REQUIRES_EH=1 >> llvm[0]: Compiling ThreadSafety.cpp for Debug+Asserts build >> if g++ -Illvm-r206978-build/include >> -Illvm-r206978-build/tools/clang/lib/Analysis -Illvm-r206978/include >> -Illvm-r206978/tools/clang/lib/Analysis -D_DEBUG -D_GNU_SOURCE >> -D__STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS -D__STDC_FORMAT_MACROS -D__STDC_LIMIT_MACROS >> -Illvm-r206978/tools/clang/lib/Analysis/../../include >> -Illvm-r206978-build/tools/clang/lib/Analysis/../../include -g >> -std=c++11 -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -fPIC -Woverloaded-virtual >> -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -Wcast-qual -fno-strict-aliasing >> -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wall -W -Wno-unused-parameter -Wwrite-strings >> -I/home/abramo/eclair_cplusplus/deps/traps/include >> -Wno-maybe-uninitialized -Wno-missing-field-initializers -c -MMD -MP -MF >> >> "llvm-r206978-build/tools/clang/lib/Analysis/Debug+Asserts/ThreadSafety.d.tmp" >> -MT >> "llvm-r206978-build/tools/clang/lib/Analysis/Debug+Asserts/ThreadSafety.o" >> -MT >> "llvm-r206978-build/tools/clang/lib/Analysis/Debug+Asserts/ThreadSafety.d" >> llvm-r206978/tools/clang/lib/Analysis/ThreadSafety.cpp -o >> llvm-r206978-build/tools/clang/lib/Analysis/Debug+Asserts/ThreadSafety.o ; >> \ >> then /bin/mv -f >> >> "llvm-r206978-build/tools/clang/lib/Analysis/Debug+Asserts/ThreadSafety.d.tmp" >> >> "llvm-r206978-build/tools/clang/lib/Analysis/Debug+Asserts/ThreadSafety.d"; >> else /bin/rm >> >> "llvm-r206978-build/tools/clang/lib/Analysis/Debug+Asserts/ThreadSafety.d.tmp"; >> exit 1; fi >> In file included from >> llvm-r206978/tools/clang/lib/Analysis/ThreadSafety.cpp:25:0: >> >> llvm-r206978/tools/clang/lib/Analysis/../../include/clang/Analysis/Analyses/ThreadSafetyTIL.h: >> In member function ‘clang::threadSafety::til::SExpr* >> >> clang::threadSafety::til::CopyReducer::reduceUndefined(clang::threadSafety::til::Undefined&)’: >> >> llvm-r206978/tools/clang/lib/Analysis/../../include/clang/Analysis/Analyses/ThreadSafetyTIL.h:120:8: >> error: ‘static void clang::threadSafety::til::SExpr::operator >> delete(void*)’ is private >> void operator delete(void *) LLVM_DELETED_FUNCTION; >> ^ >> In file included from >> llvm-r206978/tools/clang/lib/Analysis/ThreadSafety.cpp:26:0: >> >> llvm-r206978/tools/clang/lib/Analysis/../../include/clang/Analysis/Analyses/ThreadSafetyTraverse.h:127:38: >> error: within this context >> return new (Arena) Undefined(Orig); >> ^ >> ... and many others. >> >> I don't think this is expected: what do you think about to remove the >> private deleted operator delete? Are there better way to fix that? > > > This looks like a GCC bug; it shouldn't be checking accessibility on this > 'operator delete' here, as far as I can see. The simplest fix is to make the > 'operator delete' public -- it's already marked LLVM_DELETED_FUNCTION, and > that's sufficient to stop these objects getting accidentally deleted.
Except on systems like MSVC 2012, where LLVM_DELETED_FUNCTION is a noop (so it's meant to be a declaration without a definition and trigger link errors). Though, given the alternative (non-compiling build for a broken gcc), I think it's a reasonable approach. ~Aaron _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
