[cfe-dev] Unreachable at IdentifierResolver.cpp:78 when friend-ing a using declaration

[David Blaikie]

On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Stephen Lin <stephenwlin at gmail.com> wrote:
> I updated the patch to check specifically for friend decls, rather
> than basing the check on semantic scope (didn't realize that using
> decls also belonged to the semantic scope of their original class;
> build environment was in a different state than what I thought when I
> ran the tests originally so didn't catch it)...all tests passed now
> (including the new one to test this particular issue).
>
> I just realized there's a separate cfe-commits list: should I submit
> the patch there? Sorry for my unfamiliarity with procedures.

Generally, yes. Details are here: http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html

>
> Thanks,
> Stephen
>
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Stephen Lin <stephenwlin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Apologies, not sure why I didn't notice before but the patch I
>> attached seems to break a test (namespace.udecl/p12.cpp), so ignore
>> it.
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Stephen Lin <stephenwlin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm new to clang development but I think I've managed to find
>>> and patch a small issue. I'm not sure what SOP is for this is, so I'm
>>> sending a message here; if this is unnecessary in the future let me
>>> know.
>>>
>>> The code below crashes because Sema::CheckOverload assumes that a
>>> function declaration is in the same semantic scope as the current
>>> lexical scope whenever the latter is a record and tries to use member
>>> using hiding rules:
>>>
>>> struct A
>>> {
>>>     void delete_foo();
>>> };
>>>
>>> struct B : public A
>>> {
>>>     using A::delete_foo;
>>> };
>>>
>>> struct Foo { friend void B::delete_foo(); private: ~Foo() { } };
>>>
>>> Similar results are obtained when "friend"-ing a using declaration
>>> declared at namespace scope.
>>>
>>> I added a small check to verify that the new function declaration is
>>> actually in the same semantic scope as the current (record) scope: as
>>> far as I can tell this can only affect "friend" declarations. The code
>>> above now triggers an error "declaration conflicts with target of
>>> using declaration already in scope" (I believe this is correct, g++
>>> errors as well) rather than a crash, and added a test for this case.
>>>
>>> Bug report at http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=15485 with patch attached.
>>>
>>> Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help with this issue.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Stephen
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev