dblaikie added a comment. In D90719#2377324 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90719#2377324>, @rnk wrote:
> I had another thought, which is that even if it is UB, perhaps we really > shouldn't be using UB as the basis for debug info emission. All programs have > bugs, and most bugs invoke some form of UB. If we don't provide sufficient > info when UB is involved, it can become harder to find the UB. The vtable > type homing heuristic works because violating the heuristic assumptions > typically results in a link error. Creating an object without calling the > class's constructor is the kind of UB that is likely to manifest as runtime > errors. > > Which is to say, I'm in favor of Amy's change as written. The same would be true for the ctor homing generally though, I think? If there was a user-defined ctor and someone chose not to call it, that'd be UB too. I'm not sure there's especially more cases of not calling implicit non-trivial ctors versus non-trivial explicit non-trivial ctors to diverge on this criteria? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D90719/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D90719 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
