Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "atmp2".
Did you mean:
tmp2
2012 Jun 19
0
[LLVMdev] [LLVMDev] Object in a try-catch block not being destroyed even after an exception
...gt; if (bs != 0)
> abort ();
> }
> /******************************************************************Source
> Code
> End*******************************************************************/
>
What clang is generating can be approximated by the following pseudocode:
atmp1, atmp2, btmp = alloca space for temporaries
call a::a on atmp1
try {
call a::a on atmp2
try {
call f(atmp1, atmp2)
call b::b on btmp
} catch {
} finally {
call a::~a on atmp2
}
} catch {
} finally {
call a::~a on atmp1
}
// NOW b is "constructed"
Looking at the...
2012 Jun 19
2
[LLVMdev] [LLVMDev] Object in a try-catch block not being destroyed even after an exception
Dear LLVM Members,
The below source code from gcc test suite replicates the problem
which i am facing. When it is built with clang, it throws an abort
(highlighted).
The following are my observations -
1. The object(tmp) is not getting destroyed immediately after the exception
is thrown. In case of Clang, the object is getting destroyed at a later
point of time.
2. In case of gcc, the
2006 May 03
1
my asterisk crashed
...s 11
times>, "x0\000\000\000\000\001\000\000\000\b", '\0' <repeats 39 times>,
"\020\000\000\000\210\214?`", '\0' <repeats 16 times>,
"k\000\000\000\002\000\000\000 *j??(j?3c"...
atmp = '\0' <repeats 79 times>
atmp2 = '\0' <repeats 2380 times>, "May 2 14:06:48", '\0' <repeats
161 times>, "May 2 14:06:48", '\0' <repeats 65 times>,
"0\000\000\000\006\000\000\000\016\000\000\000\002\000\000\000\004\000\000\000j\000\000\000\002\000\000\000y\000\0...