[PATCH] Proposal on how to fix temporary dtors.

[Manuel Klimek]

Sigh. That triggers in Analysis/dtor.cpp for this CXXBindTemporaryExpr:
CXXBindTemporaryExpr 0x3c195d8 'class
LifetimeExtension::SaveOnVirtualDestruct' (CXXTemporary 0x3c195d0)
`-CXXTemporaryObjectExpr 0x3c19590 'class
LifetimeExtension::SaveOnVirtualDestruct' 'void (void)'

I assume something fishy is going on for lifetime extended temporaries...


On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose at apple.com> wrote:

>
> On Jul 7, 2014, at 11:37 , Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose at apple.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 7, 2014, at 10:50 , Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose at apple.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 7, 2014, at 10:41 , Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose at apple.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 7, 2014, at 10:37 , Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose at apple.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 7, 2014, at 10:28 , Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose at apple.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you add an assertion at the end of a block that there are no
>>>>>> outstanding temporary destructors in the current stack frame? That seems
>>>>>> useful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you mean at the end of a VisitBlockDecl?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, during the path-sensitive run, so handleBlockExit.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you mean at the end of a CFG block? But here we might have
>>>> outstanding temporary dtors open (?)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oops, right. Was thinking too much in terms of AST structure. How about
>>>> at the end of a function (inlined or not)?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Could we say every time we transition from a block with a temp dtor
>>> terminator to a block that does not have a temp dtor terminator (or an
>>> unconditional terminator) we check?
>>>
>>>
>>> That sounds correct, but misses the case where we built the CFG wrong
>>> (forgetting to add the branch in the correct place and thus never getting
>>> to the temp dtor block at all).
>>>
>>
>> Makes sense. Do you have a hint where the right place on function exit to
>> check it would be? :)
>>
>>
>> *checks* ExprEngine::processEndOfFunction.
>>
>
> Hm, so we'll need to adjust the data structure to be indexed by stack
> frame somehow (use a map) instead of the pair<expr, stack-frame>?
>
>
> Eh, since it's an assertion I'd be fine with just iterating over it in a
> helper function. Or better, using std::find_if (if it has proper begin/end
> members).
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20140707/6f83f2b4/attachment.html>