[Lldb-commits] [libcxx] [libcxxabi] [lldb] [libunwind] [clang-tools-extra] [libc] [mlir] [compiler-rt] [clang] [lld] [llvm] [openmp] [flang] [clang] static operators should evaluate object argument (PR #68485)
Aaron Ballman via lldb-commits
lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org
Tue Jan 30 09:01:55 PST 2024
================
@@ -5865,10 +5867,24 @@ RValue CodeGenFunction::EmitCall(QualType CalleeType, const CGCallee &OrigCallee
break;
}
}
+
+ if (const auto *MD =
+ dyn_cast_if_present<CXXMethodDecl>(OCE->getCalleeDecl());
+ MD && MD->isStatic())
+ StaticOperator = true;
}
- EmitCallArgs(Args, dyn_cast<FunctionProtoType>(FnType), E->arguments(),
- E->getDirectCallee(), /*ParamsToSkip*/ 0, Order);
+ if (StaticOperator) {
+ // If we're calling a static operator, we need to emit the object argument
+ // and ignore it.
+ EmitIgnoredExpr(E->getArg(0));
+
+ EmitCallArgs(Args, dyn_cast<FunctionProtoType>(FnType),
+ drop_begin(E->arguments(), 1), E->getDirectCallee(),
+ /*ParamsToSkip=*/0, Order);
+ } else
+ EmitCallArgs(Args, dyn_cast<FunctionProtoType>(FnType), E->arguments(),
+ E->getDirectCallee(), /*ParamsToSkip=*/0, Order);
----------------
AaronBallman wrote:
I think that suggests there's still a problem; we should not have to manually drop the arguments when there's a parameter explicitly for that. I think what's happening is that there's a mismatch between static call operator prototypes and the checking logic in `EmitCallArgs`. CC @efriedma-quic @rjmccall
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68485
More information about the lldb-commits
mailing list