dblaikie added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
lldb/test/API/functionalities/data-formatter/data-formatter-stl/libcxx/string/main.cpp:101
S.assign(L"!!!!!"); // Set break point at this line.
+ std::string *not_a_string = (std::string *) 0x0;
+ touch_string(*not_a_string);
----------------
This cast isn't needed, right? This could be rewritten more traditionally as:
```
std::string ¬_a_string = nullptr;
```
?
================
Comment at:
lldb/test/API/functionalities/data-formatter/data-formatter-stl/libcxx/string/main.cpp:102
+ std::string *not_a_string = (std::string *) 0x0;
+ touch_string(*not_a_string);
return 0;
----------------
JDevlieghere wrote:
> shafik wrote:
> > This is undefined behavior and I AFAICT this won't pass a sanitized build,
> > amazingly even if I use `__attribute__((no_sanitize("address",
> > "undefined")))` : https://godbolt.org/z/4TGPbrYhq
> Definitely UB, but the sanitized bot builds LLDB with the sanitizers, not the
> test cases, so this should be "fine".
Seems best avoided if possible though, yeah? What's trying to be demonstrated
by this test?
What if the function took a std::string* instead of std::string&, and the
caller doesn't need to dereference that pointer - it could call some other,
unrelated function to act as a stop-point for the debugger?
& then the "printing a bad string" Could be tested by printing an expression,
like "p *str" that dereferences in the expression?
Or is the issue only present through the auto-printing of variables in
parameters in a stack trace, and not present when using the user-defined
expression evaluator?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D108228/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D108228
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
