================ @@ -7575,15 +7577,27 @@ static void visitLifetimeBoundArguments(IndirectLocalPath &Path, Expr *Call, Path.pop_back(); }; - if (ObjectArg && implicitObjectParamIsLifetimeBound(Callee)) - VisitLifetimeBoundArg(Callee, ObjectArg); - bool CheckCoroCall = false; if (const auto *RD = Callee->getReturnType()->getAsRecordDecl()) { CheckCoroCall = RD->hasAttr<CoroLifetimeBoundAttr>() && RD->hasAttr<CoroReturnTypeAttr>() && !Callee->hasAttr<CoroDisableLifetimeBoundAttr>(); } + + if (ObjectArg) { + bool CheckCoroObjArg = CheckCoroCall; + // Ignore `__promise.get_return_object()` as it is not lifetimebound. + if (CheckCoroObjArg && Callee->getDeclName().isIdentifier() && + Callee->getName() == "get_return_object") + CheckCoroObjArg = false; + // Coroutine lambda objects with empty capture list are not lifetimebound. + if (auto *LE = dyn_cast<LambdaExpr>(ObjectArg->IgnoreImplicit()); + LE && LE->captures().empty()) + CheckCoroObjArg = false; ---------------- ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
> It may not result in runtime errors (even in sanitizers), because this is > never accessed, but I wonder if it is actually legal or UB in the standard? I feel it is literally undefined. Since the spec doesn't say a lot about resumption/suspension about coroutines. Also the description of http://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.fct.def.coroutine#note-3 is vague too. It says it is `likely` to be an undefined behavior. > Which makes me skew in the direction of warning for these cases two I didn't get the logic here. Why it is not good to warn the undefined things? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77066 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits