r200805 - Further simplify r200797 and add an explanatory comment.

[Adrian Prantl]

Nice code-golfing, there! Thanks for adding the comment :-)

-- adrian

On Feb 4, 2014, at 15:46, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

> Author: dblaikie
> Date: Tue Feb  4 17:46:16 2014
> New Revision: 200805
> 
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=200805&view=rev
> Log:
> Further simplify r200797 and add an explanatory comment.
> 
> Modified:
>    cfe/trunk/test/CodeGenCXX/debug-info-template-fwd.cpp
> 
> Modified: cfe/trunk/test/CodeGenCXX/debug-info-template-fwd.cpp
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/CodeGenCXX/debug-info-template-fwd.cpp?rev=200805&r1=200804&r2=200805&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- cfe/trunk/test/CodeGenCXX/debug-info-template-fwd.cpp (original)
> +++ cfe/trunk/test/CodeGenCXX/debug-info-template-fwd.cpp Tue Feb  4 17:46:16 2014
> @@ -1,33 +1,27 @@
> // RUN: %clang_cc1 %s -triple=x86_64-apple-darwin -g -emit-llvm -o - | FileCheck %s
> -// This test is for a crash when emitting debug info for not-yet-completed types.
> +// This test is for a crash when emitting debug info for not-yet-completed
> +// types.
> // Test that we don't actually emit a forward decl for the offending class:
> -// CHECK:  [ DW_TAG_class_type ] [Derived<Foo>] {{.*}} [def]
> +// CHECK:  [ DW_TAG_structure_type ] [Derived<int>] {{.*}} [def]
> // rdar://problem/15931354
> -template <class R> class Returner {};
> template <class A> class Derived;
> 
> -template <class A>
> -class Base
> -{
> -  static Derived<A>* create();
> +template <class A> class Base {
> +  static Derived<A> *create();
> };
> 
> -template <class A>
> -class Derived : public Base<A> {
> -public:
> -  static void foo();
> +template <class A> struct Derived : Base<A> {
> };
> 
> -class Foo
> -{
> -  Foo();
> -  static Returner<Base<Foo> > all();
> -};
> -
> -Foo::Foo(){}
> +Base<int> *f;
> 
> -Returner<Base<Foo> > Foo::all()
> -{
> -  Derived<Foo>::foo();
> -  return Foo::all();
> -}
> +// During the instantiation of Derived<int>, Base<int> becomes required to be
> +// complete - since the declaration has already been emitted (due to 'f',
> +// above), we immediately try to build debug info for Base<int> which then
> +// requires the (incomplete definition) of Derived<int> which is problematic.
> +//
> +// (if 'f' is not present, the point at which Base<int> becomes required to be
> +// complete during the instantiation of Derived<int> is a no-op because
> +// Base<int> was never emitted so we ignore it and carry on until we
> +// wire up the base class of Derived<int> in the debug info later on)
> +Derived<int> d;
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits