[cfe-commits] r90283 - in /cfe/trunk: lib/Sema/Sema.h lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp lib/Sema/SemaExprCXX.cpp test/CodeGenCXX/virtual-destructor-synthesis.cpp

[Fariborz Jahanian]

On Dec 1, 2009, at 6:25 PM, Eli Friedman wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Fariborz Jahanian  
> <fjahanian at apple.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 1, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Eli Friedman wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Fariborz Jahanian <fjahanian at apple.com 
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Author: fjahanian
>>>> Date: Tue Dec  1 17:18:25 2009
>>>> New Revision: 90283
>>>>
>>>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=90283&view=rev
>>>> Log:
>>>> Fix a code gen. crash synthesizing a destructor.
>>>> Fixes pr5660.
>>>
>>> This patch looks very wrong.  I think the real issue here is  
>>> something
>>> similar to PR5557: Sema doesn't know whether the vtable is created,
>>> and therefore doesn't do the stuff that MarkDeclarationReferenced is
>>> supposed to do for virtual functions.
>>
>> Yes, that is the problem. Patch just looks up the delete operator
>> and makes it available in the destructor to be used, if synthesis is
>> to occur. Can you point to what can go wrong?
>
> What if there isn't any valid delete operator?  I'm not entirely sure
> off the top of my head how that would happen, but I think it's
> possible.  We don't print a diagnostic, and there isn't a delete
> operator, so we're back to crashing.

I thought about this too. I think this will not happen. If we have a  
declaration which eventually requires
the delete operator for its destruction, the CheckDestructor is called  
and  operator delete will
be looked up. Except that this time a diagnostic will be issued.

- fariborz

>
> -Eli