================
@@ -556,14 +556,23 @@ class TransferVisitor : public
ConstStmtVisitor<TransferVisitor> {
copyRecord(*LocSrc, *LocDst, Env);
- // If the expr is a glvalue, we can reasonably assume the operator is
- // returning T& and thus we can assign it `LocDst`.
- if (S->isGLValue()) {
+ // The assignment operator can have an arbitrary return type. We model
the
+ // return value only if the return type is the same as or a base class of
+ // the destination type.
+ if (S->getType().getCanonicalType().getUnqualifiedType() !=
+ LocDst->getType().getCanonicalType().getUnqualifiedType()) {
+ auto ReturnDecl = S->getType()->getAsCXXRecordDecl();
+ auto DstDecl = LocDst->getType()->getAsCXXRecordDecl();
+ if (ReturnDecl == nullptr || DstDecl == nullptr)
+ return;
+ if (!DstDecl->isDerivedFrom(ReturnDecl))
----------------
martinboehme wrote:
I think it's consistent with our more general approach -- we treat "storage
location not set" as meaning "we have no information" [^1]. For example, if
above we discover that this isn't a copy or move assignment operator, we bail
out without doing anything.
Granted, this case is a bit different in that we have already modeled the
assignment itself (by doing the `copyRecord()`) above, but I think it's still
consistent to do this but decide we don't know how to model the return value /
location.
[^1]: Of course, a fresh storage location that isn't otherwise constrained
expresses essentially the same thing, but it's simpler to instead not assign a
storage location at all.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90898
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
