================
@@ -1882,22 +1882,27 @@ TypeSP DWARFASTParserClang::ParseStructureLikeDIE(
m_ast.CreateClassTemplateSpecializationDecl(
containing_decl_ctx, GetOwningClangModule(die),
class_template_decl,
tag_decl_kind, template_param_infos);
- if (!class_specialization_decl) {
- if (log) {
- dwarf->GetObjectFile()->GetModule()->LogMessage(
- log,
- "SymbolFileDWARF({0:p}) - Failed to create specialization for "
- "clang::ClassTemplateDecl({1}, {2:p}).",
- this, llvm::StringRef(attrs.name), class_template_decl);
- }
- return TypeSP();
+ if (class_specialization_decl) {
+ clang_type =
+
m_ast.CreateClassTemplateSpecializationType(class_specialization_decl);
+
+ m_ast.SetMetadata(class_template_decl, metadata);
+ m_ast.SetMetadata(class_specialization_decl, metadata);
+ } else if (log) {
+ // A specialization with identical template arguments already exists.
+ // This happens with malformed/duplicated DWARF, e.g. GCC emits several
+ // reduced copies of a std::tuple<...> instantiation whose only template
+ // child is an empty DW_TAG_GNU_template_parameter_pack, so every copy
+ // collapses to the same (empty) argument list. Failing to parse the type
+ // here would leave members that reference it (such as unique_ptr's _M_t)
+ // with a null type and crash data formatters. Instead, fall through and
+ // build a plain (non-template) record type below.
----------------
Michael137 wrote:
> A specialization with identical template arguments already exists.
`class_specialization_decl == nullptr` doesn't necessarily imply that there is
a duplicate specialization.
It's true based on the implementation, but it's not an obvious signal when
reading this code and also may change in the future. E.g., nullptr could just
be a different error condition. Probably best to signal the "there is an
existing specialization" differently then just returning nullptr. We should've
thought of that as part of
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/4dfe212dade7
Also, could you explain why with a `class_specialization_decl == nullptr` its
fine to skip `CreateClassTemplateSpecializationType` and continue with the rest
of this function? That seems like it would cause more trouble.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/207705
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
