ChuanqiXu added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/coroutines.cpp:987
+//
+// So it isn't ill-formed if the promise doesn't define return_value and
return_void. It is just a UB.
+coro<promise_no_return_func> no_return_value_or_return_void() {
----------------
Quuxplusone wrote:
> It's not UB; it's //potential// UB.
> My understanding is that such a coroutine could still be used:
> - if it exits by throwing an exception instead of `co_return`'ing
> - if it suspends and then its caller `destroy`s it instead of `resume`ing it
>
> I believe it would be useful to have some actual tests for these scenarios,
> that would actually run and check that the runtime behavior is correct, or at
> least check the IR that was generated. Is that possible?
Yes, such a coroutine could still be used. AFAIK, we couldn't make tests which
would run actually. All the test cases I know is about pattern match. So we
couldn't make tests in clang to run actually for this. I have tested it
locally. And I think it is unnecessary to check the IR was generated since this
patch didn't add new statements except a null statement as marker.
BTW, it shows another big issue for coroutines. We lack test-suite and
benchmarks now. Now I tested the correctness of the compiler by test it in our
internal projects. But we need an open source test suites absolutely. This is
true for benchmarks. I thought to make the two things... but I don't find time
for it now...
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D116204/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D116204
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
