On Nov 18, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Nuno Lopes wrote: >>> Hi Nuno, >> >> I think there is a bug here, but it might be a little more >> insidious than your patch implies (there could actually be a >> problem in StmtIterator as well). I don't have time right now, >> but I will investigate this some more later today (or at the >> latest, tomorrow). > > Yes, I was afraid of that. The patch looked too easy for me (and a > bit of a hack)..
Hi Nuno, I just committed a fix. Your patch was dead on aside from the "return 0" should be "return Block"; I only removed an extra check that became redundant after adding the guard from your patch. Thanks so much for reporting this! I thought it might have been a more serious error in StmtIterator, but thankfully that wasn't the case. >> BTW, the test case you provided does not illustrate the bug at >> all. At least for me, running it with or without your changes to >> CFG.cpp produces valid input. The following code, however, does >> produce a crash: >> >> The problem has to do with neither decl for k or y having an >> initializer. > > Ah, sorry. It seems I stripped the test file too much :P I got that > from a big file and it seems I messed up. No worries. The test case is still valid and now in the code base. Thank you! Ted _______________________________________________ cfe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
