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 ()'
----------------
Michael137 wrote:
> 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...
You probably mean multiple constructor definitions can point to the same
specification DIE? In which case we would choose the first one happen to see.
To what extent can these definitions differ?
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
