maxjhandsome
/
llvm-project
forked from OSchip/llvm-project
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Releases Wiki Activity
llvm-project/clang/test/Index/coroutines.cpp

Ignoring revisions in .git-blame-ignore-revs. Click here to bypass and see the normal blame view.

25 lines
728 B
C++
Raw Normal View History

[libclang] CoroutineBody/Coreturn statements are UnexposedStmts and not Exprs This change ensures that the libclang CXCursor represents the CoroutineBody and the Coreturn statement using the appropriate CXCursor_UnexposedStmt kind instead of CXCursor_UnexposedExpr. The problem with CXCursor_UnexposedExpr is that the consumer functions assumed that CoroutineBody/Coreturn statements were valid expressions and performed an invalid downcast to Expr causing assertion failures or other crashes. rdar://40204290 llvm-svn: 350282
2019-01-03 09:13:33 +08:00
// RUN: c-index-test -test-load-source all -c %s -fsyntax-only -target x86_64-apple-darwin9 -fcoroutines-ts -std=c++1z -I%S/../SemaCXX/Inputs | FileCheck %s
#include "std-coroutine.h"
[Coroutines] [Frontend] Lookup in std namespace first Now in libcxx and clang, all the coroutine components are defined in std::experimental namespace. And now the coroutine TS is merged into C++20. So in the working draft like N4892, we could find the coroutine components is defined in std namespace instead of std::experimental namespace. And the coroutine support in clang seems to be relatively stable. So I think it may be suitable to move the coroutine component into the experiment namespace now. This patch would make clang lookup coroutine_traits in std namespace first. For the compatibility consideration, clang would lookup in std::experimental namespace if it can't find definitions in std namespace. So the existing codes wouldn't be break after update compiler. And in case the compiler found std::coroutine_traits and std::experimental::coroutine_traits at the same time, it would emit an error for it. The support for looking up std::experimental::coroutine_traits would be removed in Clang16. Reviewed By: lxfind, Quuxplusone Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108696
2021-11-04 11:50:30 +08:00
using std::suspend_always;
using std::suspend_never;
[libclang] CoroutineBody/Coreturn statements are UnexposedStmts and not Exprs This change ensures that the libclang CXCursor represents the CoroutineBody and the Coreturn statement using the appropriate CXCursor_UnexposedStmt kind instead of CXCursor_UnexposedExpr. The problem with CXCursor_UnexposedExpr is that the consumer functions assumed that CoroutineBody/Coreturn statements were valid expressions and performed an invalid downcast to Expr causing assertion failures or other crashes. rdar://40204290 llvm-svn: 350282
2019-01-03 09:13:33 +08:00
struct promise_void {
void get_return_object();
suspend_always initial_suspend();
[Coroutines] Ensure co_await promise.final_suspend() does not throw Summary: This patch addresses https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46256 The spec of coroutine requires that the expression co_­await promise.final_­suspend() shall not be potentially-throwing. To check this, we recursively look at every call (including Call, MemberCall, OperatorCall and Constructor) in all code generated by the final suspend, and ensure that the callees are declared with noexcept. We also look at any returned data type that requires explicit destruction, and check their destructors for noexcept. This patch does not check declarations with dependent types yet, which will be done in future patches. Updated all tests to add noexcept to the required functions, and added a dedicated test for this patch. This patch might start to cause existing codebase fail to compile because most people may not have been strict in tagging all the related functions noexcept. Reviewers: lewissbaker, modocache, junparser Reviewed By: modocache Subscribers: arphaman, junparser, cfe-commits Tags: #clang Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82029
2020-06-16 07:27:41 +08:00
suspend_always final_suspend() noexcept;
[libclang] CoroutineBody/Coreturn statements are UnexposedStmts and not Exprs This change ensures that the libclang CXCursor represents the CoroutineBody and the Coreturn statement using the appropriate CXCursor_UnexposedStmt kind instead of CXCursor_UnexposedExpr. The problem with CXCursor_UnexposedExpr is that the consumer functions assumed that CoroutineBody/Coreturn statements were valid expressions and performed an invalid downcast to Expr causing assertion failures or other crashes. rdar://40204290 llvm-svn: 350282
2019-01-03 09:13:33 +08:00
void return_void();
void unhandled_exception();
};
template <>
[Coroutines] [Frontend] Lookup in std namespace first Now in libcxx and clang, all the coroutine components are defined in std::experimental namespace. And now the coroutine TS is merged into C++20. So in the working draft like N4892, we could find the coroutine components is defined in std namespace instead of std::experimental namespace. And the coroutine support in clang seems to be relatively stable. So I think it may be suitable to move the coroutine component into the experiment namespace now. This patch would make clang lookup coroutine_traits in std namespace first. For the compatibility consideration, clang would lookup in std::experimental namespace if it can't find definitions in std namespace. So the existing codes wouldn't be break after update compiler. And in case the compiler found std::coroutine_traits and std::experimental::coroutine_traits at the same time, it would emit an error for it. The support for looking up std::experimental::coroutine_traits would be removed in Clang16. Reviewed By: lxfind, Quuxplusone Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108696
2021-11-04 11:50:30 +08:00
struct std::coroutine_traits<void> { using promise_type = promise_void; };
[libclang] CoroutineBody/Coreturn statements are UnexposedStmts and not Exprs This change ensures that the libclang CXCursor represents the CoroutineBody and the Coreturn statement using the appropriate CXCursor_UnexposedStmt kind instead of CXCursor_UnexposedExpr. The problem with CXCursor_UnexposedExpr is that the consumer functions assumed that CoroutineBody/Coreturn statements were valid expressions and performed an invalid downcast to Expr causing assertion failures or other crashes. rdar://40204290 llvm-svn: 350282
2019-01-03 09:13:33 +08:00
void CoroutineTestRet() {
co_return;
}
// CHECK: [[@LINE-3]]:25: UnexposedStmt=
// CHECK-SAME: [[@LINE-4]]:25 - [[@LINE-2]]:2]
Fix incorrect column numbers in test from r350282. After the test was reformatted using clang-format the numbers became invalid. llvm-svn: 350283
2019-01-03 09:30:50 +08:00
// CHECK: [[@LINE-4]]:3: UnexposedStmt=
// CHECK-SAME: [[@LINE-5]]:3 - [[@LINE-5]]:12]