Thank you for help. Now I see that sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap is green. If it indeed was repaired by r213178, it could mean that sanitizer issues false warnings for 1-byte blocks, as the only effect of that change is prevention of allocating tiny blocks.
Thanks, --Serge 2014-07-17 3:15 GMT+07:00 Evgeniy Stepanov <[email protected]>: > 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
