================
@@ -6686,8 +6686,22 @@ Expr *Sema::MaybeCreateExprWithCleanups(Expr *SubExpr) {
assert(ExprCleanupObjects.size() >= FirstCleanup);
assert(Cleanup.exprNeedsCleanups() ||
ExprCleanupObjects.size() == FirstCleanup);
- if (!Cleanup.exprNeedsCleanups())
+ if (!Cleanup.exprNeedsCleanups()) {
+ // If we have a 'new' expression with a non-trivial destructor, we need to
+ // wrap it in an ExprWithCleanups to ensure that the destructor is called
+ // if the constructor throws.
+ if (auto *NE = dyn_cast<CXXNewExpr>(SubExpr)) {
----------------
ilovepi wrote:
I mostly got that to work. It broke a test under c++98 (cwg3xx.cpp). I stepped
through in a debugger, and near as I can tell, that test broke because the
static assert din't recognize ExprWithCleanups as transparent to evaluation in
checkICE. I'm not super confident that is 100% the right course of action, but
I kind of convinced myself it should be OK skimming the other special cases and
AST documentation. Happy to try another approach if I'm wrong, but all the
existing tests pass with this, so if we're not happy I guess we (I) should try
and figure out a counter example to add as a regression test.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/175817
_______________________________________________
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
