-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.3k
[clang] Fix a crash issue that caused by handling of fields with initializers in nested anonymous unions #113049
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
804b103
[clang] Fix a crash issue that caused by handling of fields with init…
yronglin de4a9d5
Revert "[clang] Fix a crash issue that caused by handling of fields w…
yronglin 882fd4e
Recovery from the invalid in-class-initializer
yronglin cf5a038
Add test for ast-dump
yronglin ac30f8a
Try to recover when in-class-initializer had errors
yronglin c0be803
Move the error check into BuildCXXDefaultInit
yronglin 5be9331
Build invalid default-member-init in BuildCXXDefaultInitExpr
yronglin File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As far as I can tell, the reason the code in SemaInit is getting confused is that the union is marked "hasInClassInitializer" because of the initializer... but then there isn't actually an initializer anywhere because we failed to parse it.
I think hasInClassInitializer() on RecordDecl needs to be consistent with hasInClassInitializer() on FieldDecl. If hasInClassInitializer is true, there should be an initializer somewhere. Either we should pretend the user didn't write the "=", or we should construct a RecoveryExpr to represent the missing initializer. Adding extra handling to every bit of code that checks hasInClassInitializer spreads out error handling to places it shouldn't exist.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the review! Make sense, there should have a RecoveryExpr as the initializer. I'd like to give a try.