================
@@ -7575,15 +7577,27 @@ static void
visitLifetimeBoundArguments(IndirectLocalPath &Path, Expr *Call,
Path.pop_back();
};
- if (ObjectArg && implicitObjectParamIsLifetimeBound(Callee))
- VisitLifetimeBoundArg(Callee, ObjectArg);
-
bool CheckCoroCall = false;
if (const auto *RD = Callee->getReturnType()->getAsRecordDecl()) {
CheckCoroCall = RD->hasAttr<CoroLifetimeBoundAttr>() &&
RD->hasAttr<CoroReturnTypeAttr>() &&
!Callee->hasAttr<CoroDisableLifetimeBoundAttr>();
}
+
+ if (ObjectArg) {
+ bool CheckCoroObjArg = CheckCoroCall;
+ // Ignore `__promise.get_return_object()` as it is not lifetimebound.
+ if (CheckCoroObjArg && Callee->getDeclName().isIdentifier() &&
+ Callee->getName() == "get_return_object")
+ CheckCoroObjArg = false;
+ // Coroutine lambda objects with empty capture list are not lifetimebound.
+ if (auto *LE = dyn_cast<LambdaExpr>(ObjectArg->IgnoreImplicit());
+ LE && LE->captures().empty())
+ CheckCoroObjArg = false;
----------------
ilya-biryukov wrote:
It may not result in runtime errors (even in sanitizers), because this is never
accessed, but I wonder if it is actually legal or UB in the standard?
AFAIK, calling a method if the object argument is `null` is UB, even if `this`
is never accessed inside the method itself (citation needed, though, I looked
at section of class member access and function call, but couldn't find a
decisive wording there).
So, a coroutine frame ends up keeping a pointer to a lambda that goes out of
scope. After initial suspension and on resume, it will probably **still call a
method on that same pointer** per C++ standard.
Which makes me skew in the direction of warning for these cases two (but we
need some proof from the standard gurus here)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77066
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
