[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 7:50 PM, Anders Carlsson wrote:

>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> If it's in the vtable, the destructor might be called, even if the
>> call isn't obvious.  That isn't really the issue here anyway, though:
>> the issue is that it would crash trying to generate the destructor,
>> whether or not it's actually called.
>>
>
> Incidentally, I'm working on a fix for this :) Basically, when we  
> emit a function definition, we check if it's the key function (where  
> the vtable should be emitted).
>
> If it is the key function, indicating that this is where the vtable  
> will be emitted by codegen, then we mark all the implicit virtual  
> declarations (the dtor, and maybe the assignment operator?) as  
> referenced.
>
> If the record decl does not have a key method, we mark the virtual  
> declarations when we encounter the constructor instead, because  
> that's where the vtable will be first used.

Great. This is the right way to go.

- Fariborz

>
> Anders
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20091201/50e80ef2/attachment.html>