replica
/
hanchenye-llvm-project
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity
hanchenye-llvm-project/clang/test/CodeGenCXX/implicit-copy-constructor.cpp

73 lines
1.4 KiB
C++
Raw Normal View History

Reimplement code generation for copying fields in the implicitly-generated copy constructor. Previously, Sema would perform some checking and instantiation to determine which copy constructors, etc., would be called, then CodeGen would attempt to figure out which copy constructor to call... but would get it wrong, or poke at an uninstantiated default argument, or fail in other ways. The new scheme is similar to what we now do for the implicit copy-assignment operator, where Sema performs all of the semantic analysis and builds specific ASTs that look similar to the ASTs we'd get from explicitly writing the copy constructor, so that CodeGen need only do a direct translation. However, it's not quite that simple because one cannot explicit write elementwise copy-construction of an array. So, I've extended CXXBaseOrMemberInitializer to contain a list of indexing variables used to copy-construct the elements. For example, if we have: struct A { A(const A&); }; struct B { A array[2][3]; }; then we generate an implicit copy assignment operator for B that looks something like this: B::B(const B &other) : array[i0][i1](other.array[i0][i1]) { } CodeGen will loop over the invented variables i0 and i1 to visit all elements in the array, so that each element in the destination array will be copy-constructed from the corresponding element in the source array. Of course, if we're dealing with arrays of scalars or class types with trivial copy-assignment operators, we just generate a memcpy rather than a loop. Fixes PR6928, PR5989, and PR6887. Boost.Regex now compiles and passes all of its regression tests. Conspicuously missing from this patch is handling for the exceptional case, where we need to destruct those objects that we have constructed. I'll address that case separately. llvm-svn: 103079
2010-05-05 13:51:00 +08:00
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple x86_64-apple-darwin10 -emit-llvm -o - %s | FileCheck %s
struct A {
A();
A(const A&);
A(A&);
~A();
};
struct B {
B();
B(B&);
};
struct C {
C() {}
C(C& other, A a = A());
int i, j;
};
struct POD {
int array[3][4];
};
struct D : A, B, virtual C {
D();
int scalar;
int scalar_array[2][3];
B class_member;
C class_member_array[2][3];
POD pod_array[2][3];
union {
int x;
float f[3];
};
};
void f(D d) {
D d2(d);
}
Move unnamed_addr after the function arguments on Sabre's request. llvm-svn: 124210
2011-01-26 03:10:24 +08:00
// CHECK: define linkonce_odr void @_ZN1DC1ERS_(%struct.D* %this, %struct.D*) unnamed_addr
Reimplement code generation for copying fields in the implicitly-generated copy constructor. Previously, Sema would perform some checking and instantiation to determine which copy constructors, etc., would be called, then CodeGen would attempt to figure out which copy constructor to call... but would get it wrong, or poke at an uninstantiated default argument, or fail in other ways. The new scheme is similar to what we now do for the implicit copy-assignment operator, where Sema performs all of the semantic analysis and builds specific ASTs that look similar to the ASTs we'd get from explicitly writing the copy constructor, so that CodeGen need only do a direct translation. However, it's not quite that simple because one cannot explicit write elementwise copy-construction of an array. So, I've extended CXXBaseOrMemberInitializer to contain a list of indexing variables used to copy-construct the elements. For example, if we have: struct A { A(const A&); }; struct B { A array[2][3]; }; then we generate an implicit copy assignment operator for B that looks something like this: B::B(const B &other) : array[i0][i1](other.array[i0][i1]) { } CodeGen will loop over the invented variables i0 and i1 to visit all elements in the array, so that each element in the destination array will be copy-constructed from the corresponding element in the source array. Of course, if we're dealing with arrays of scalars or class types with trivial copy-assignment operators, we just generate a memcpy rather than a loop. Fixes PR6928, PR5989, and PR6887. Boost.Regex now compiles and passes all of its regression tests. Conspicuously missing from this patch is handling for the exceptional case, where we need to destruct those objects that we have constructed. I'll address that case separately. llvm-svn: 103079
2010-05-05 13:51:00 +08:00
// CHECK: call void @_ZN1AC1Ev
// CHECK: call void @_ZN1CC2ERS_1A
// CHECK: call void @_ZN1AD1Ev
// CHECK: call void @_ZN1AC2ERS_
// CHECK: call void @_ZN1BC2ERS_
// CHECK: {{call void @llvm.memcpy.p0i8.p0i8.i64.*i64 24}}
// CHECK: call void @_ZN1BC1ERS_
// CHECK: br
// CHECK: {{icmp ult.*, 2}}
// CHECK: {{icmp ult.*, 3}}
// CHECK: call void @_ZN1AC1Ev
// CHECK: call void @_ZN1CC1ERS_1A
// CHECK: call void @_ZN1AD1Ev
// CHECK: {{call void @llvm.memcpy.p0i8.p0i8.i64.*i64 288}}
// CHECK: {{call void @llvm.memcpy.p0i8.p0i8.i64.*i64 12}}
// CHECK: ret void
template<class T> struct X0 { void f0(T * ) { } };
template <class > struct X1 { X1( X1& , int = 0 ) { } };
struct X2 { X1<int> result; };
void test_X2()
{
typedef X2 impl;
typedef X0<impl> pimpl;
impl* i;
pimpl pdata;
pdata.f0( new impl(*i));
}