[PATCH] D134334: [Clang] Fix crash in isCXXDeclarationSpecifier when attempting to annotate template name
Shafik Yaghmour via Phabricator via cfe-commits
cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
Fri Jun 2 12:43:33 PDT 2023
shafik marked an inline comment as done.
shafik added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Parse/ParseTentative.cpp:1553-1554
return TPResult::Error;
- if (Tok.isNot(tok::identifier))
+ if (NextToken().isNot(tok::identifier))
break;
}
----------------
cor3ntin wrote:
> rsmith wrote:
> > This doesn't seem correct to me. If we had `scope::foo bar`, and we annotate `scope::foo` as a type, then this will get confused by the next token now being an (unrelated) identifier. This code is trying to detect if an annotation was performed, so I think it intended to check if the current token's kind has changed, like is done on line 1295.
> The confusing bit is that Tok is always an annotated scope already here (L1598), so TryAnnotateName should not modify that first token (unless TryAnnotateTypeOrScopeTokenAfterScopeSpec can somehow replace the current annot_cxxscope by another one, which i don't think can happen?)
Ok using `tok::annot_cxxscope` also works and I agree it makes sense as well, `check-clang` also passes.
So then is the assert below wrong?
```
// Annotated it, check again.
assert(Tok.isNot(tok::annot_cxxscope) ||
NextToken().isNot(tok::identifier));
```
It looks like it will work by accident for most cases b/c it checks `tok::annot_cxxscope` first.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D134334/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D134334
More information about the cfe-commits
mailing list