Michael137 added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
lldb/test/API/lang/cpp/external_ctor_dtor_lookup/TestExternalCtorDtorLookup.py:28
+# CHECK: |-CXXConstructorDecl {{.*}} Wrapper 'void ()'
+# CHECK-NEXT: | `-AsmLabelAttr {{.*}} Implicit
"_ZN7WrapperI3FooEC1B4testEv"
+# CHECK-NEXT: `-CXXDestructorDecl {{.*}} ~Wrapper 'void ()'
----------------
labath wrote:
> I think this could be a bit of a problem, because (as you've probably found
> out by now) there are multiple versions of a single constructor, and the asm
> label seems to cause clang to coalesce them. In the simple test case below
> that doesn't matter, as the two constructors are identical, but things might
> be different if the class had virtual bases. (i.e., it could cause us to call
> the wrong constructor and blow up).
I may be misunderstanding, but wouldn't they just get added as extra
`CXXConstructorDecl`s on the AST with distinct `AsmLabel`s? Each constructor
subprogram DIE links to some specification, which is the definition of the
constructor we should call. That's where we get the linkage name from. Playing
around with virtual bases I didn't yet manage to come up with a counterexample
of where we would pick the wrong constructor
Although I did now notice that there's an extra destructor call in some cases
where I didn't expect one before. Maybe that's a manifestation of the issue you
describe. Investigating...
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D143652/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D143652
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
