njames93 added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/modernize/LoopConvertCheck.cpp:316-317
return nullptr;
+ if (!Member->getMemberDecl()->getDeclName().isIdentifier())
+ return nullptr;
StringRef Name = Member->getMemberDecl()->getName();
----------------
njames93 wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > It's really strange to me that we're even getting to this point in the
> > check -- the only way for the assertion to fail is for the member call
> > expression to be on something without a name. The cases I can think of for
> > that would be something like `foo.operator+(RHS)` or something similarly
> > nonsensical within this context (we're looking for things named `begin` or
> > `end`). I think it'd make more sense to handle this at the matcher level
> > (or early in the call chain) so that we never get here.
> >
> > I think having a test case would be really useful to trying to understand
> > what changes are appropriate. I don't think these changes are wrong so much
> > as I wonder if we're in the wrong place to make them (and we'll hit other
> > confused code elsewhere).
> It is very strange. At the matcher level we are looking for calls to methods
> named `begin` or `end` or (c/r) variants.
> I'm gonna try and put some debug prints and see if I can figure out the code
> actually causing the assert in the first place.
>
> In the mean time, I have a patch in the works that moves a lot of the logic
> into the matchers and this whole function is removed in there, however a few
> creases still need to be ironed out in there.
So I put some debugprints in there and managed to find the cause of the crash
```
// llvm/lib/Option/OptTable.cpp:150
for (StringSet<>::const_iterator I = PrefixesUnion.begin(),
E = PrefixesUnion.end(); I != E; ++I) {
StringRef Prefix = I->getKey();
for (StringRef::const_iterator C = Prefix.begin(), CE = Prefix.end();
C != CE; ++C)
if (!is_contained(PrefixChars, *C))
PrefixChars.push_back(*C);
}```
However I'm still not 100% sure of the cause of the crash. Its nothing to do
with `begin()` being a member of the bast class StringMap. I tried testing with
inherited begin/end methods and no crash.
My best guess is Prefix.begin() returns `StringMapIterator<>`, that class
contains a conversion operator to `StringMapConstIterator<>`. Conversion
operators names aren't Identifiers so that would explain the assert.
If that is the case, the actual issue is in `digThroughConstructors` being
fooled by the `CXXMemberCallExpr` that's just a conversion operator.
The other patch in the works doesn't use that function so the bug is not
present there, maybe its easier to just get that ready. WDYT?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D97889/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D97889
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
