About right, but for MemorySanitizer you need to link target binaries with instrumented libstdc++/libc++. And it does not detect leaks anyway, ASan does.
So, -DLLVM_USE_SANITIZER=Address should do it. On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Serge Pavlov <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Evgeniy, > > There is nothing in r213120, that could cause memory leaks in > NestedNameSpecifierLocBuilder, maybe this change triggered existing problem. > Sanitizer reports leaks of tiny blocks (1 byte), in r213178 such blocks > should not be created. However I am not sure if this can help. > > By the way, how I can build compiler with sanitizer enabled? When I create > build using command: > > cmake \ > -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release \ > -DLLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS=ON \ > -DCMAKE_C_COMPILER=$CLANGPATH/clang \ > -DCMAKE_CXX_COMPILER=$CLANGPATH/clang++ \ > -DLLVM_USE_SANITIZER=Memory \ > -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD=X86 \ > ../llvm > > make fails: > > [ 6%] Building Intrinsics.gen... > ==25305== WARNING: MemorySanitizer: use-of-uninitialized-value > #0 0x7fb534d9dedd in _M_dispose > /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.2/../../../../include/c++/4.8.2/bits/basic_string.h:240:34 > ... > > > Thanks, > --Serge > > > 2014-07-16 19:50 GMT+07:00 Evgeniy Stepanov <[email protected]>: > >> Hi, >> >> is looks like there are new memory leaks from this change: >> >> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/builds/3963/steps/check-clang%20asan/logs/stdio >> >> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Serge Pavlov <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Author: sepavloff >> > Date: Wed Jul 16 00:16:52 2014 >> > New Revision: 213120 >> > >> > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=213120&view=rev >> > Log: >> > Improve error recovery around colon. >> > >> > Recognize additional cases, when '::' is mistyped as ':'. >> > This is a fix to RP18587 - colons have too much protection in >> > member-declarations >> > Review is tracked by http://reviews.llvm.org/D3653. >> > >> > This is an attempt to recommit the fix, initially committed as r212957 >> > but then >> > reverted in r212965 as it broke self-build. In the updated patch >> > ParseDirectDeclarator >> > turns on colon protection in for context as well. >> > >> > Modified: >> > cfe/trunk/lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp >> > cfe/trunk/lib/Parse/ParseDeclCXX.cpp >> > cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/enum-bitfield.cpp >> > cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/for-range-examples.cpp >> > cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/nested-name-spec.cpp >> > >> > Modified: cfe/trunk/lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp >> > URL: >> > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp?rev=213120&r1=213119&r2=213120&view=diff >> > >> > ============================================================================== >> > --- cfe/trunk/lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp (original) >> > +++ cfe/trunk/lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp Wed Jul 16 00:16:52 2014 >> > @@ -2715,24 +2715,23 @@ void Parser::ParseDeclarationSpecifiers( >> > // typedef-name >> > case tok::kw_decltype: >> > case tok::identifier: { >> > + // This identifier can only be a typedef name if we haven't >> > already seen >> > + // a type-specifier. Without this check we misparse: >> > + // typedef int X; struct Y { short X; }; as 'short int'. >> > + if (DS.hasTypeSpecifier()) >> > + goto DoneWithDeclSpec; >> > + >> > // In C++, check to see if this is a scope specifier like >> > foo::bar::, if >> > // so handle it as such. This is important for ctor parsing. >> > if (getLangOpts().CPlusPlus) { >> > if (TryAnnotateCXXScopeToken(EnteringContext)) { >> > - if (!DS.hasTypeSpecifier()) >> > - DS.SetTypeSpecError(); >> > + DS.SetTypeSpecError(); >> > goto DoneWithDeclSpec; >> > } >> > if (!Tok.is(tok::identifier)) >> > continue; >> > } >> > >> > - // This identifier can only be a typedef name if we haven't >> > already seen >> > - // a type-specifier. Without this check we misparse: >> > - // typedef int X; struct Y { short X; }; as 'short int'. >> > - if (DS.hasTypeSpecifier()) >> > - goto DoneWithDeclSpec; >> > - >> > // Check for need to substitute AltiVec keyword tokens. >> > if (TryAltiVecToken(DS, Loc, PrevSpec, DiagID, isInvalid)) >> > break; >> > @@ -4529,7 +4528,9 @@ void Parser::ParseDeclaratorInternal(Dec >> > // Member pointers get special handling, since there's no place for >> > the >> > // scope spec in the generic path below. >> > if (getLangOpts().CPlusPlus && >> > - (Tok.is(tok::coloncolon) || Tok.is(tok::identifier) || >> > + (Tok.is(tok::coloncolon) || >> > + (Tok.is(tok::identifier) && >> > + (NextToken().is(tok::coloncolon) || NextToken().is(tok::less))) >> > || >> > Tok.is(tok::annot_cxxscope))) { >> > bool EnteringContext = D.getContext() == Declarator::FileContext || >> > D.getContext() == Declarator::MemberContext; >> > @@ -4722,6 +4723,14 @@ void Parser::ParseDirectDeclarator(Decla >> > DeclaratorScopeObj DeclScopeObj(*this, D.getCXXScopeSpec()); >> > >> > if (getLangOpts().CPlusPlus && D.mayHaveIdentifier()) { >> > + // Don't parse FOO:BAR as if it were a typo for FOO::BAR inside a >> > class, in >> > + // this context it is a bitfield. Also in range-based for statement >> > colon >> > + // may delimit for-range-declaration. >> > + ColonProtectionRAIIObject X(*this, >> > + D.getContext() == >> > Declarator::MemberContext || >> > + (D.getContext() == >> > Declarator::ForContext && >> > + getLangOpts().CPlusPlus11)); >> > + >> > // ParseDeclaratorInternal might already have parsed the scope. >> > if (D.getCXXScopeSpec().isEmpty()) { >> > bool EnteringContext = D.getContext() == Declarator::FileContext >> > || >> > >> > Modified: cfe/trunk/lib/Parse/ParseDeclCXX.cpp >> > URL: >> > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Parse/ParseDeclCXX.cpp?rev=213120&r1=213119&r2=213120&view=diff >> > >> > ============================================================================== >> > --- cfe/trunk/lib/Parse/ParseDeclCXX.cpp (original) >> > +++ cfe/trunk/lib/Parse/ParseDeclCXX.cpp Wed Jul 16 00:16:52 2014 >> > @@ -1239,7 +1239,8 @@ void Parser::ParseClassSpecifier(tok::To >> > // Parse the (optional) nested-name-specifier. >> > CXXScopeSpec &SS = DS.getTypeSpecScope(); >> > if (getLangOpts().CPlusPlus) { >> > - // "FOO : BAR" is not a potential typo for "FOO::BAR". >> > + // "FOO : BAR" is not a potential typo for "FOO::BAR". In this >> > context it >> > + // is a base-specifier-list. >> > ColonProtectionRAIIObject X(*this); >> > >> > if (ParseOptionalCXXScopeSpecifier(SS, ParsedType(), >> > EnteringContext)) >> > @@ -1926,14 +1927,8 @@ void Parser::ParseCXXMemberDeclaratorBef >> > // declarator pure-specifier[opt] >> > // declarator brace-or-equal-initializer[opt] >> > // identifier[opt] ':' constant-expression >> > - if (Tok.isNot(tok::colon)) { >> > - // Don't parse FOO:BAR as if it were a typo for FOO::BAR, in this >> > context it >> > - // is a bitfield. >> > - // FIXME: This should only apply when parsing the id-expression >> > (see >> > - // PR18587). >> > - ColonProtectionRAIIObject X(*this); >> > + if (Tok.isNot(tok::colon)) >> > ParseDeclarator(DeclaratorInfo); >> > - } >> > >> > if (!DeclaratorInfo.isFunctionDeclarator() && >> > TryConsumeToken(tok::colon)) { >> > BitfieldSize = ParseConstantExpression(); >> > @@ -2015,6 +2010,14 @@ void Parser::ParseCXXClassMemberDeclarat >> > return; >> > } >> > >> > + // Turn on colon protection early, while parsing declspec, although >> > there is >> > + // nothing to protect there. It prevents from false errors if error >> > recovery >> > + // incorrectly determines where the declspec ends, as in the example: >> > + // struct A { enum class B { C }; }; >> > + // const int C = 4; >> > + // struct D { A::B : C; }; >> > + ColonProtectionRAIIObject X(*this); >> > + >> > // Access declarations. >> > bool MalformedTypeSpec = false; >> > if (!TemplateInfo.Kind && >> > @@ -2128,13 +2131,11 @@ void Parser::ParseCXXClassMemberDeclarat >> > if (MalformedTypeSpec) >> > DS.SetTypeSpecError(); >> > >> > - { >> > - // Don't parse FOO:BAR as if it were a typo for FOO::BAR, in this >> > context it >> > - // is a bitfield. >> > - ColonProtectionRAIIObject X(*this); >> > - ParseDeclarationSpecifiers(DS, TemplateInfo, AS, DSC_class, >> > - &CommonLateParsedAttrs); >> > - } >> > + ParseDeclarationSpecifiers(DS, TemplateInfo, AS, DSC_class, >> > + &CommonLateParsedAttrs); >> > + >> > + // Turn off colon protection that was set for declspec. >> > + X.restore(); >> > >> > // If we had a free-standing type definition with a missing >> > semicolon, we >> > // may get this far before the problem becomes obvious. >> > >> > Modified: cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/enum-bitfield.cpp >> > URL: >> > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/enum-bitfield.cpp?rev=213120&r1=213119&r2=213120&view=diff >> > >> > ============================================================================== >> > --- cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/enum-bitfield.cpp (original) >> > +++ cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/enum-bitfield.cpp Wed Jul 16 00:16:52 2014 >> > @@ -16,3 +16,15 @@ struct Y { >> > enum E : int(2); >> > enum E : Z(); // expected-error{{integral constant expression must >> > have integral or unscoped enumeration type, not 'Z'}} >> > }; >> > + >> > +namespace pr18587 { >> > +struct A { >> > + enum class B { >> > + C >> > + }; >> > +}; >> > +const int C = 4; >> > +struct D { >> > + A::B : C; >> > +}; >> > +} >> > >> > Modified: cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/for-range-examples.cpp >> > URL: >> > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/for-range-examples.cpp?rev=213120&r1=213119&r2=213120&view=diff >> > >> > ============================================================================== >> > --- cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/for-range-examples.cpp (original) >> > +++ cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/for-range-examples.cpp Wed Jul 16 00:16:52 >> > 2014 >> > @@ -227,3 +227,15 @@ namespace test7 { >> > for (e [[deprecated]] : arr) { e = 0; } // expected-warning >> > {{deprecated}} expected-note {{here}} expected-warning {{extension}} >> > } >> > } >> > + >> > +namespace pr18587 { >> > + class Arg {}; >> > + struct Cont { >> > + int *begin(); >> > + int *end(); >> > + }; >> > + void AddAllArgs(Cont &x) { >> > + for (auto Arg: x) { >> > + } >> > + } >> > +} >> > >> > Modified: cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/nested-name-spec.cpp >> > URL: >> > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/nested-name-spec.cpp?rev=213120&r1=213119&r2=213120&view=diff >> > >> > ============================================================================== >> > --- cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/nested-name-spec.cpp (original) >> > +++ cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/nested-name-spec.cpp Wed Jul 16 00:16:52 2014 >> > @@ -311,3 +311,102 @@ namespace N { >> > >> > namespace TypedefNamespace { typedef int F; }; >> > TypedefNamespace::F::NonexistentName BadNNSWithCXXScopeSpec; // >> > expected-error {{'F' (aka 'int') is not a class, namespace, or scoped >> > enumeration}} >> > + >> > +namespace PR18587 { >> > + >> > +struct C1 { >> > + int a, b, c; >> > + typedef int C2; >> > + struct B1 { >> > + struct B2 { >> > + int a, b, c; >> > + }; >> > + }; >> > +}; >> > +struct C2 { static const unsigned N1 = 1; }; >> > +struct B1 { >> > + enum E1 { B2 = 2 }; >> > + static const int B3 = 3; >> > +}; >> > +const int N1 = 2; >> > + >> > +// Function declarators >> > +struct S1a { int f(C1::C2); }; >> > +struct S1b { int f(C1:C2); }; // expected-error{{unexpected ':' in >> > nested name specifier; did you mean '::'?}} >> > + >> > +struct S2a { >> > + C1::C2 f(C1::C2); >> > +}; >> > +struct S2c { >> > + C1::C2 f(C1:C2); // expected-error{{unexpected ':' in nested name >> > specifier; did you mean '::'?}} >> > +}; >> > + >> > +struct S3a { >> > + int f(C1::C2), C2 : N1; >> > + int g : B1::B2; >> > +}; >> > +struct S3b { >> > + int g : B1:B2; // expected-error{{unexpected ':' in nested name >> > specifier; did you mean '::'?}} >> > +}; >> > + >> > +// Inside square brackets >> > +struct S4a { >> > + int f[C2::N1]; >> > +}; >> > +struct S4b { >> > + int f[C2:N1]; // expected-error{{unexpected ':' in nested name >> > specifier; did you mean '::'?}} >> > +}; >> > + >> > +struct S5a { >> > + int f(int xx[B1::B3 ? C2::N1 : B1::B2]); >> > +}; >> > +struct S5b { >> > + int f(int xx[B1::B3 ? C2::N1 : B1:B2]); // >> > expected-error{{unexpected ':' in nested name specifier; did you mean >> > '::'?}} >> > +}; >> > +struct S5c { >> > + int f(int xx[B1:B3 ? C2::N1 : B1::B2]); // >> > expected-error{{unexpected ':' in nested name specifier; did you mean >> > '::'?}} >> > +}; >> > + >> > +// Bit fields >> > +struct S6a { >> > + C1::C2 m1 : B1::B2; >> > +}; >> > +struct S6c { >> > + C1::C2 m1 : B1:B2; // expected-error{{unexpected ':' in nested name >> > specifier; did you mean '::'?}} >> > +}; >> > +struct S6d { >> > + int C2:N1; >> > +}; >> > +struct S6e { >> > + static const int N = 3; >> > + B1::E1 : N; >> > +}; >> > +struct S6g { >> > + C1::C2 : B1:B2; // expected-error{{unexpected ':' in nested name >> > specifier; did you mean '::'?}} >> > + B1::E1 : B1:B2; // expected-error{{unexpected ':' in nested name >> > specifier; did you mean '::'?}} >> > +}; >> > + >> > +// Template parameters >> > +template <int N> struct T1 { >> > + int a,b,c; >> > + static const unsigned N1 = N; >> > + typedef unsigned C1; >> > +}; >> > +T1<C2::N1> var_1a; >> > +T1<C2:N1> var_1b; // expected-error{{unexpected ':' in nested name >> > specifier; did you mean '::'?}} >> > +template<int N> int F() {} >> > +int (*X1)() = (B1::B2 ? F<1> : F<2>); >> > +int (*X2)() = (B1:B2 ? F<1> : F<2>); // expected-error{{unexpected ':' >> > in nested name specifier; did you mean '::'?}} >> > + >> > +// Bit fields + templates >> > +struct S7a { >> > + T1<B1::B2>::C1 m1 : T1<B1::B2>::N1; >> > +}; >> > +struct S7b { >> > + T1<B1:B2>::C1 m1 : T1<B1::B2>::N1; // expected-error{{unexpected ':' >> > in nested name specifier; did you mean '::'?}} >> > +}; >> > +struct S7c { >> > + T1<B1::B2>::C1 m1 : T1<B1:B2>::N1; // expected-error{{unexpected ':' >> > in nested name specifier; did you mean '::'?}} >> > +}; >> > + >> > +} >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > cfe-commits mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
