[Clang] ICE in CheckPointerToMemberOperands passing decltype of lambda #53815
Labels
clang:frontend
Language frontend issues, e.g. anything involving "Sema"
confirmed
Verified by a second party
crash
Prefer [crash-on-valid] or [crash-on-invalid]
Comments
EugeneZelenko
added
clang:frontend
|
@llvm/issue-subscribers-clang-frontend |
AaronBallman
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Feb 27, 2024
When analysing whether we should handle a binary expression as an overloaded operator call or a builtin operator, we were calling `checkPlaceholderForOverload()`, which takes care of any placeholders that are not overload sets—which would usually make sense since those need to be handled as part of overload resolution. Unfortunately, we were also doing that for `.*`, which is not overloadable, and then proceeding to create a builtin operator anyway, which would crash if the RHS happened to be an unresolved overload set (due hitting an assertion in `CreateBuiltinBinOp()`—specifically, in one of its callees—in the `.*` case that makes sure its arguments aren’t placeholders). This pr instead makes it so we check for *all* placeholders early if the operator is `.*`. It’s worth noting that, 1. In the `.*` case, we now additionally also check for *any* placeholders (not just non-overload-sets) in the LHS; this shouldn’t make a difference, however—at least I couldn’t think of a way to trigger the assertion with an overload set as the LHS of `.*`; it is worth noting that the assertion in question would also complain if the LHS happened to be of placeholder type, though. 2. There is another case in which we also don’t perform overload resolution—namely `=` if the LHS is not of class or enumeration type after handling non-overload-set placeholders—as in the `.*` case, but similarly to 1., I first couldn’t think of a way of getting this case to crash, and secondly, `CreateBuiltinBinOp()` doesn’t seem to care about placeholders in the LHS or RHS in the `=` case (from what I can tell, it, or rather one of its callees, only checks that the LHS is not a pseudo-object type, but those will have already been handled by the call to `checkPlaceholderForOverload()` by the time we get to this function), so I don’t think this case suffers from the same problem. This fixes #53815. --------- Co-authored-by: Aaron Ballman <aaron@aaronballman.com>
Sirraide
added a commit
to Sirraide/llvm-project
that referenced
this issue
Mar 4, 2024
When analysing whether we should handle a binary expression as an overloaded operator call or a builtin operator, we were calling `checkPlaceholderForOverload()`, which takes care of any placeholders that are not overload sets—which would usually make sense since those need to be handled as part of overload resolution. Unfortunately, we were also doing that for `.*`, which is not overloadable, and then proceeding to create a builtin operator anyway, which would crash if the RHS happened to be an unresolved overload set (due hitting an assertion in `CreateBuiltinBinOp()`—specifically, in one of its callees—in the `.*` case that makes sure its arguments aren’t placeholders). This pr instead makes it so we check for *all* placeholders early if the operator is `.*`. It’s worth noting that, 1. In the `.*` case, we now additionally also check for *any* placeholders (not just non-overload-sets) in the LHS; this shouldn’t make a difference, however—at least I couldn’t think of a way to trigger the assertion with an overload set as the LHS of `.*`; it is worth noting that the assertion in question would also complain if the LHS happened to be of placeholder type, though. 2. There is another case in which we also don’t perform overload resolution—namely `=` if the LHS is not of class or enumeration type after handling non-overload-set placeholders—as in the `.*` case, but similarly to 1., I first couldn’t think of a way of getting this case to crash, and secondly, `CreateBuiltinBinOp()` doesn’t seem to care about placeholders in the LHS or RHS in the `=` case (from what I can tell, it, or rather one of its callees, only checks that the LHS is not a pseudo-object type, but those will have already been handled by the call to `checkPlaceholderForOverload()` by the time we get to this function), so I don’t think this case suffers from the same problem. This fixes llvm#53815. --------- Co-authored-by: Aaron Ballman <aaron@aaronballman.com>
tstellar
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Mar 13, 2024
When analysing whether we should handle a binary expression as an overloaded operator call or a builtin operator, we were calling `checkPlaceholderForOverload()`, which takes care of any placeholders that are not overload sets—which would usually make sense since those need to be handled as part of overload resolution. Unfortunately, we were also doing that for `.*`, which is not overloadable, and then proceeding to create a builtin operator anyway, which would crash if the RHS happened to be an unresolved overload set (due hitting an assertion in `CreateBuiltinBinOp()`—specifically, in one of its callees—in the `.*` case that makes sure its arguments aren’t placeholders). This pr instead makes it so we check for *all* placeholders early if the operator is `.*`. It’s worth noting that, 1. In the `.*` case, we now additionally also check for *any* placeholders (not just non-overload-sets) in the LHS; this shouldn’t make a difference, however—at least I couldn’t think of a way to trigger the assertion with an overload set as the LHS of `.*`; it is worth noting that the assertion in question would also complain if the LHS happened to be of placeholder type, though. 2. There is another case in which we also don’t perform overload resolution—namely `=` if the LHS is not of class or enumeration type after handling non-overload-set placeholders—as in the `.*` case, but similarly to 1., I first couldn’t think of a way of getting this case to crash, and secondly, `CreateBuiltinBinOp()` doesn’t seem to care about placeholders in the LHS or RHS in the `=` case (from what I can tell, it, or rather one of its callees, only checks that the LHS is not a pseudo-object type, but those will have already been handled by the call to `checkPlaceholderForOverload()` by the time we get to this function), so I don’t think this case suffers from the same problem. This fixes #53815. --------- Co-authored-by: Aaron Ballman <aaron@aaronballman.com>
19 tasks
compnerd
pushed a commit
to compnerd/llvm-project
that referenced
this issue
Aug 10, 2024
When analysing whether we should handle a binary expression as an overloaded operator call or a builtin operator, we were calling `checkPlaceholderForOverload()`, which takes care of any placeholders that are not overload sets—which would usually make sense since those need to be handled as part of overload resolution. Unfortunately, we were also doing that for `.*`, which is not overloadable, and then proceeding to create a builtin operator anyway, which would crash if the RHS happened to be an unresolved overload set (due hitting an assertion in `CreateBuiltinBinOp()`—specifically, in one of its callees—in the `.*` case that makes sure its arguments aren’t placeholders). This pr instead makes it so we check for *all* placeholders early if the operator is `.*`. It’s worth noting that, 1. In the `.*` case, we now additionally also check for *any* placeholders (not just non-overload-sets) in the LHS; this shouldn’t make a difference, however—at least I couldn’t think of a way to trigger the assertion with an overload set as the LHS of `.*`; it is worth noting that the assertion in question would also complain if the LHS happened to be of placeholder type, though. 2. There is another case in which we also don’t perform overload resolution—namely `=` if the LHS is not of class or enumeration type after handling non-overload-set placeholders—as in the `.*` case, but similarly to 1., I first couldn’t think of a way of getting this case to crash, and secondly, `CreateBuiltinBinOp()` doesn’t seem to care about placeholders in the LHS or RHS in the `=` case (from what I can tell, it, or rather one of its callees, only checks that the LHS is not a pseudo-object type, but those will have already been handled by the call to `checkPlaceholderForOverload()` by the time we get to this function), so I don’t think this case suffers from the same problem. This fixes llvm#53815. --------- Co-authored-by: Aaron Ballman <aaron@aaronballman.com> (cherry picked from commit d23ef9e)
ADKaster
pushed a commit
to ADKaster/llvm-project
that referenced
this issue
Aug 19, 2024
When analysing whether we should handle a binary expression as an overloaded operator call or a builtin operator, we were calling `checkPlaceholderForOverload()`, which takes care of any placeholders that are not overload sets—which would usually make sense since those need to be handled as part of overload resolution. Unfortunately, we were also doing that for `.*`, which is not overloadable, and then proceeding to create a builtin operator anyway, which would crash if the RHS happened to be an unresolved overload set (due hitting an assertion in `CreateBuiltinBinOp()`—specifically, in one of its callees—in the `.*` case that makes sure its arguments aren’t placeholders). This pr instead makes it so we check for *all* placeholders early if the operator is `.*`. It’s worth noting that, 1. In the `.*` case, we now additionally also check for *any* placeholders (not just non-overload-sets) in the LHS; this shouldn’t make a difference, however—at least I couldn’t think of a way to trigger the assertion with an overload set as the LHS of `.*`; it is worth noting that the assertion in question would also complain if the LHS happened to be of placeholder type, though. 2. There is another case in which we also don’t perform overload resolution—namely `=` if the LHS is not of class or enumeration type after handling non-overload-set placeholders—as in the `.*` case, but similarly to 1., I first couldn’t think of a way of getting this case to crash, and secondly, `CreateBuiltinBinOp()` doesn’t seem to care about placeholders in the LHS or RHS in the `=` case (from what I can tell, it, or rather one of its callees, only checks that the LHS is not a pseudo-object type, but those will have already been handled by the call to `checkPlaceholderForOverload()` by the time we get to this function), so I don’t think this case suffers from the same problem. This fixes llvm#53815. --------- Co-authored-by: Aaron Ballman <aaron@aaronballman.com> (cherry picked from commit d23ef9e)
xgupta
pushed a commit
to xgupta/llvm-project
that referenced
this issue
Sep 9, 2024
When analysing whether we should handle a binary expression as an overloaded operator call or a builtin operator, we were calling `checkPlaceholderForOverload()`, which takes care of any placeholders that are not overload sets—which would usually make sense since those need to be handled as part of overload resolution. Unfortunately, we were also doing that for `.*`, which is not overloadable, and then proceeding to create a builtin operator anyway, which would crash if the RHS happened to be an unresolved overload set (due hitting an assertion in `CreateBuiltinBinOp()`—specifically, in one of its callees—in the `.*` case that makes sure its arguments aren’t placeholders). This pr instead makes it so we check for *all* placeholders early if the operator is `.*`. It’s worth noting that, 1. In the `.*` case, we now additionally also check for *any* placeholders (not just non-overload-sets) in the LHS; this shouldn’t make a difference, however—at least I couldn’t think of a way to trigger the assertion with an overload set as the LHS of `.*`; it is worth noting that the assertion in question would also complain if the LHS happened to be of placeholder type, though. 2. There is another case in which we also don’t perform overload resolution—namely `=` if the LHS is not of class or enumeration type after handling non-overload-set placeholders—as in the `.*` case, but similarly to 1., I first couldn’t think of a way of getting this case to crash, and secondly, `CreateBuiltinBinOp()` doesn’t seem to care about placeholders in the LHS or RHS in the `=` case (from what I can tell, it, or rather one of its callees, only checks that the LHS is not a pseudo-object type, but those will have already been handled by the call to `checkPlaceholderForOverload()` by the time we get to this function), so I don’t think this case suffers from the same problem. This fixes llvm#53815. --------- Co-authored-by: Aaron Ballman <aaron@aaronballman.com>
xgupta
pushed a commit
to xgupta/llvm-project
that referenced
this issue
Oct 10, 2024
When analysing whether we should handle a binary expression as an overloaded operator call or a builtin operator, we were calling `checkPlaceholderForOverload()`, which takes care of any placeholders that are not overload sets—which would usually make sense since those need to be handled as part of overload resolution. Unfortunately, we were also doing that for `.*`, which is not overloadable, and then proceeding to create a builtin operator anyway, which would crash if the RHS happened to be an unresolved overload set (due hitting an assertion in `CreateBuiltinBinOp()`—specifically, in one of its callees—in the `.*` case that makes sure its arguments aren’t placeholders). This pr instead makes it so we check for *all* placeholders early if the operator is `.*`. It’s worth noting that, 1. In the `.*` case, we now additionally also check for *any* placeholders (not just non-overload-sets) in the LHS; this shouldn’t make a difference, however—at least I couldn’t think of a way to trigger the assertion with an overload set as the LHS of `.*`; it is worth noting that the assertion in question would also complain if the LHS happened to be of placeholder type, though. 2. There is another case in which we also don’t perform overload resolution—namely `=` if the LHS is not of class or enumeration type after handling non-overload-set placeholders—as in the `.*` case, but similarly to 1., I first couldn’t think of a way of getting this case to crash, and secondly, `CreateBuiltinBinOp()` doesn’t seem to care about placeholders in the LHS or RHS in the `=` case (from what I can tell, it, or rather one of its callees, only checks that the LHS is not a pseudo-object type, but those will have already been handled by the call to `checkPlaceholderForOverload()` by the time we get to this function), so I don’t think this case suffers from the same problem. This fixes llvm#53815. --------- Co-authored-by: Aaron Ballman <aaron@aaronballman.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
This code causes a failed assert on compiler explorer using clang x86-64 assertions trunk
https://godbolt.org/z/q7PYhTcMY
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: