efriedma added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/JumpDiagnostics.cpp:347
+ LabelAndGotoScopes[S] = ParentScope;
+ Jumps.push_back(S);
+ }
----------------
jyu2 wrote:
> efriedma wrote:
> > This doesn't look right; I think we need to add it to IndirectJumps
> > instead. This probably impacts a testcase like the following:
> >
> > ```
> > struct S { ~S(); };
> > int f() {
> > {
> > S s;
> > asm goto(""::::BAR);
> > return 1;
> > }
> > BAR:
> > return 0;
> > }
> > ```
> >
> > (gcc currently accepts this and skips running the destructor, but I'm
> > pretty sure that's a bug.)
> Hi Eli,
> I see both g++ and clang++ with my change call ~S. Am I missing something?
> Thanks.
>
> 1>clang++ j.cpp
> 1>./a.out
> ~S()
> 1>g++ j.cpp
> 1>./a.out
> ~S()
>
> Here is the test case:
> 1>cat j.cpp
> extern "C" int printf (const char *,...);
> struct S { ~S() {printf("~S()\n");}; };
> int f() {
> {
> S s;
> asm goto(""::::BAR);
> return 1;
> }
> BAR:
> return 0;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
> f();
> }
>
Oh, sorry, I wasn't paying attention to the actual contents of the asm. If you
modify the asm goto slightly, to `asm goto("jmp %0"::::BAR);`, you'll see that
the destructor doesn't run, at least with gcc. (This is different from the way
`goto BAR;` works.)
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56571/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56571
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
