tahonermann wrote:
> The removal of the null check on `Init` in the code snippet leads to a
> segmentation fault when `Init` is null because it attempts to access a member
> function on a null pointer. The test case
> `test/SemaCXX/paren-list-agg-init.cpp` below expects compiler diagnostics for
> improper array initialization, not a crash. Therefore, the null check is
> necessary to prevent dereferencing a null pointer and to ensure the code
> handles cases where the initializer is absent.
>
> ```
> int arr6[n](1, 2, 3); // expected-warning {{variable length arrays in C++ are
> a Clang extension}} \
> expected-note {{function parameter 'n' with
> unknown value cannot be used in a constant expression}} \
> expected-error {{variable-sized object may not be
> initialized}}
> ```
Thanks, @smanna12. That is interesting as it implies that the call to
`InitializationSequence::Perform()` did indeed return a result that was valid
but null. Would you be able to debug to find out where that null result is
coming from? Perhaps here:
```
clang/lib/Sema/SemaInit.cpp:
7486 ExprResult InitializationSequence::Perform(Sema &S,
7487 const InitializedEntity
&Entity,
7488 const InitializationKind &Kind,
7489 MultiExprArg Args,
7490 QualType *ResultType) {
....
7573 // No steps means no initialization.
7574 if (Steps.empty())
7575 return ExprResult((Expr *)nullptr);
....
8474 }
```
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/94368
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
