-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.6k
[Clang][AST] Fix crash in APValue::LValueBase::getType when we have invalid decl #75130
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
Open
shafik
wants to merge
1
commit into
llvm:main
Choose a base branch
from
shafik:fixLvalueBaseGetTypeCrashFixbcInvalidDecl
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ | ||
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -verify %s | ||
|
||
|
||
a[i] = b[i]; // expected-error {{use of undeclared identifier 'i'}} \ | ||
// expected-error {{a type specifier is required for all declarations}} \ | ||
// expected-error {{use of undeclared identifier 'b'}} \ | ||
// expected-error {{use of undeclared identifier 'i'}} | ||
extern char b[]; | ||
extern char a[]; | ||
|
||
void foo(int j) { | ||
// This used to crash here | ||
a[j] = b[j]; | ||
} |
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.
This doesn't seem right to me... this change makes us skip the 'right' answer when there is a redecl in the way.
In reality, I wonder if this whole loop is misguided. If we want to just find the 'last' non-incomplete-array-type, that search is pretty easy by looping through 'redecls'. I THINK this ends up better as:
redecl_iterator
is a forward-iterator, else I'd suggest just doing an rbegin/rend type thing on them.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.
We are dealing with ill-formed code here. So there is not "right answer", right? Are you saying that we might misdiagnose an error?
Or are you saying the original code is incorrect and you think there is well-formed code we will not do the correct thing on?
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.
The problem is that if the 'invalid' decl is the last one, we end up giving up on this loop entirely. If the purpose here is to just skip an invalid decl, we probably need to skip JUST it, not all previous ones too.