efriedma created this revision.
efriedma added reviewers: vsk, davidxl.
efriedma added a project: clang.
Fixes regression from r320533.
This fixes the undefined behavior, but I'm not sure it's really right... I
think we end up with missing coverage for code in modules.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41374
Files:
lib/CodeGen/CodeGenModule.cpp
Index: lib/CodeGen/CodeGenModule.cpp
===================================================================
--- lib/CodeGen/CodeGenModule.cpp
+++ lib/CodeGen/CodeGenModule.cpp
@@ -4289,7 +4289,11 @@
}
void CodeGenModule::EmitDeferredUnusedCoverageMappings() {
- for (const auto &Entry : DeferredEmptyCoverageMappingDecls) {
+ // We call takeVector() here to avoid use-after-free.
+ // FIXME: DeferredEmptyCoverageMappingDecls is getting mutated because
+ // we deserialize function bodies to emit coverage info for them, and that
+ // deserializes more declarations. How should we handle that case?
+ for (const auto &Entry : DeferredEmptyCoverageMappingDecls.takeVector()) {
if (!Entry.second)
continue;
const Decl *D = Entry.first;
Index: lib/CodeGen/CodeGenModule.cpp
===================================================================
--- lib/CodeGen/CodeGenModule.cpp
+++ lib/CodeGen/CodeGenModule.cpp
@@ -4289,7 +4289,11 @@
}
void CodeGenModule::EmitDeferredUnusedCoverageMappings() {
- for (const auto &Entry : DeferredEmptyCoverageMappingDecls) {
+ // We call takeVector() here to avoid use-after-free.
+ // FIXME: DeferredEmptyCoverageMappingDecls is getting mutated because
+ // we deserialize function bodies to emit coverage info for them, and that
+ // deserializes more declarations. How should we handle that case?
+ for (const auto &Entry : DeferredEmptyCoverageMappingDecls.takeVector()) {
if (!Entry.second)
continue;
const Decl *D = Entry.first;
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
