NoQ added a comment.
In D74735#1903503 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74735#1903503>, @martong wrote:
> @NoQ
>
> I've found the following reproducer to crash in `CallAndMessageChecker`:
>
> class a {
> public:
> a(int);
> };
> struct b : a {
> using a::a;
> };
> void c() {
> int d;
> b x(d); //Crash!, Note, x(0) causes no crash
> }
>
>
> I am working on a fix, but any insight and help from you is really
> appreciated.
Uh-oh, i've been looking for those but never found them.
If you do `-analyzer-display-progress` you'll see that it crashes not in `c()`
but in `b::a()`, i.e. when trying to analyze an inheriting constructor as a
top-level function. It then crashes when it's trying to figure out which
argument expressions do we pass into the inherited constructor, but is unable
to do that because the answer is "the same arguments we've received" but we
don't know which arguments we've received, because, well, we are the top-level
call, so no expressions for us.
I believe we simply should not try to analyze inheriting constructors as
top-level functions. We won't be able to even display any diagnostics, given
that the inheriting constructor doesn't have a body.
I thereby leave out the reason why `x(d)` and `x(0)` demonstrate different
behavior as a simple exercise to the reader :]
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D74735/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D74735
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
