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 cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits