[lldb] Mark the implicit copy constructor as deleted when a move constructor is provided.

[teemperor]

Summary

CXXRecordDecls that have a move constructor but no copy constructor need to
have their implicit copy constructor marked as deleted (see C++11 [class.copy]p7, p18)
Currently we don't do that when building an AST with ClangASTContext which causes
Sema to realise that the AST is malformed and asserting when trying to create an implicit
copy constructor for us in the expression:

Assertion failed: ((data().DefaultedCopyConstructorIsDeleted || needsOverloadResolutionForCopyConstructor())
    && "Copy constructor should not be deleted"), function setImplicitCopyConstructorIsDeleted, file include/clang/AST/DeclCXX.h, line 828.

In the test case there is a class NoCopyCstr that should have its copy constructor marked as
deleted (as it has a move constructor). When we end up trying to tab complete in the
IndirectlyDeletedCopyCstr constructor, Sema realises that the IndirectlyDeletedCopyCstr
has no implicit copy constructor and tries to create one for us. It then realises that
NoCopyCstr also has no copy constructor it could find via lookup. However because we
haven't marked the FieldDecl as having a deleted copy constructor the
needsOverloadResolutionForCopyConstructor() returns false and the assert fails.
needsOverloadResolutionForCopyConstructor() would return true if during the time we
added the NoCopyCstr FieldDecl to IndirectlyDeletedCopyCstr we would have actually marked
it as having a deleted copy constructor (which would then mark the copy constructor of
IndirectlyDeletedCopyCstr as needing overload resolution and Sema is happy).

This patch sets the correct mark when we complete our CXXRecordDecls (which is the time when
we know whether a copy constructor has been declared). In theory we don't have to do this if
we had a Sema around when building our debug info AST but at the moment we don't have this
so this has to do the job for now.

[teemperor]

• Upload correct revision of the test file.

[teemperor]

FWIW this patch makes me realise that we really should have a Sema around when we create the module AST as this would prevent issues like this and saves us from simulating Sema behavior. That's probably yet another large refactoring so I don't have time for that soon-ish but if anyone wants to do this then be my guest.

[teemperor]

• Rebase.

[teemperor]

• Readd test files.

[shafik]

LGTM

lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/commands/expression/deleting-implicit-copy-constructor/main.cpp

15

Is this the only way to trigger the assert on the command line?

lldb/source/Symbol/ClangASTContext.cpp

7786

There are other cases where special member functions should be deleted as well. I don't know if they will show up as asserts as well but it is unfortunate that we have to mirror the logic here.

[teemperor]

Thanks for the review!

lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/commands/expression/deleting-implicit-copy-constructor/main.cpp

15

Actually touching IndirectlyDeletedCopyCstr in any other way also does the trick (but it was found by completing in the constructor). I added an expression that just tries to create an instance which tests the same thing (and I keep the completing around as that's a very cheap test as it doesn't codegen/run anything).

lldb/source/Symbol/ClangASTContext.cpp

7786

Please add them as tests when you have time!

[teemperor]

• Added a simple expr evaluation as an additional way to trigger the error.

lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/commands/expression/completion-crash1/TestCompletionCrash1.py

-from lldbsuite.test import lldbinline
-from lldbsuite.test import decorators
-
-lldbinline.MakeInlineTest(__file__, globals(), [decorators.skipIf(bugnumber="rdar://53659341")])

lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/commands/expression/completion-crash1/main.cpp

-namespace std {
-struct a {
-  a() {}
-  a(a &&);
-};
-template <class> struct au {
-  a ay;
-  ~au() { //%self.dbg.GetCommandInterpreter().HandleCompletion("e ", len("e "), 0, -1, lldb.SBStringList())
-  }
-};
-}
-int main() { std::au<int>{}; }

lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/commands/expression/deleting-implicit-copy-constructor/TestDeletingImplicitCopyConstructor.py

+from lldbsuite.test import lldbinline
+from lldbsuite.test import decorators
+
+lldbinline.MakeInlineTest(__file__, globals())

lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/commands/expression/deleting-implicit-copy-constructor/main.cpp

+struct NoCopyCstr {
+  NoCopyCstr() {}
+  // No copy constructor but a move constructor means we have an
+  // implicitly deleted copy constructor (C++11 [class.copy]p7, p18).
+  NoCopyCstr(NoCopyCstr &&);
+};
+struct IndirectlyDeletedCopyCstr {
+  // This field indirectly deletes the implicit copy constructor.
+  NoCopyCstr field;
+  // Completing in the constructor or constructing the class
+  // will cause Sema to declare the special members of IndirectlyDeletedCopyCstr.
+  // If we correctly set the deleted implicit copy constructor in NoCopyCstr then this
+  // should have propagated to this record and Clang won't crash.
+  IndirectlyDeletedCopyCstr() { //%self.expect_expr("IndirectlyDeletedCopyCstr x; 1+1", result_type="int", result_value="2")
+                                //%self.dbg.GetCommandInterpreter().HandleCompletion("e ", len("e "), 0, -1, lldb.SBStringList())
+  }
+};
+int main() {
+  IndirectlyDeletedCopyCstr{};
+}

lldb/source/Symbol/ClangASTContext.cpp

bool ClangASTContext::CompleteTagDeclarationDefinition(
   // Make sure we use the same methodology as
   // ClangASTContext::StartTagDeclarationDefinition() as to how we start/end
   // the definition.
   const clang::TagType *tag_type = qual_type->getAs<clang::TagType>();
   if (tag_type) {
     clang::TagDecl *tag_decl = tag_type->getDecl();
 
     if (auto *cxx_record_decl = llvm::dyn_cast<CXXRecordDecl>(tag_decl)) {
+      // If we have a move constructor declared but no copy constructor we
+      // need to explicitly mark it as deleted. Usually Sema would do this for
+      // us in Sema::DeclareImplicitCopyConstructor but we don't have a Sema
+      // when building an AST from debug information.
+      // See also:
+      // C++11 [class.copy]p7, p18:
+      //  If the class definition declares a move constructor or move assignment
+      //  operator, an implicitly declared copy constructor or copy assignment
+      //  operator is defined as deleted.
+      if (cxx_record_decl->hasUserDeclaredMoveConstructor() &&
+          cxx_record_decl->needsImplicitCopyConstructor())
+        cxx_record_decl->setImplicitCopyConstructorIsDeleted();
+
       if (!cxx_record_decl->isCompleteDefinition())
         cxx_record_decl->completeDefinition();
       cxx_record_decl->setHasLoadedFieldsFromExternalStorage(true);
       cxx_record_decl->setHasExternalLexicalStorage(false);
       cxx_record_decl->setHasExternalVisibleStorage(false);
       return true;
     }
   }

lldb/unittests/Symbol/TestClangASTContext.cpp

TEST_F(TestClangASTContext, TestFunctionTemplateInRecordConstruction) {
   // Create the actual function template.
   clang::FunctionTemplateDecl *func_template =
       m_ast->CreateFunctionTemplateDecl(record, func, "foo", empty_params);
 
   EXPECT_EQ(record, func_template->getDeclContext());
   EXPECT_EQ("foo", func_template->getName());
   EXPECT_EQ(clang::AccessSpecifier::AS_public, func_template->getAccess());
 }
+
+TEST_F(TestClangASTContext, TestDeletingImplicitCopyCstrDueToMoveCStr) {
+  // We need to simulate this behavior in our AST that we construct as we don't
+  // have a Sema instance that can do this for us:
+  // C++11 [class.copy]p7, p18:
+  //  If the class definition declares a move constructor or move assignment
+  //  operator, an implicitly declared copy constructor or copy assignment
+  //  operator is defined as deleted.
+
+  // Create a record and start defining it.
+  llvm::StringRef class_name = "S";
+  CompilerType t = clang_utils::createRecord(*m_ast, class_name);
+  m_ast->StartTagDeclarationDefinition(t);
+
+  // Create a move constructor that will delete the implicit copy constructor.
+  CompilerType return_type = m_ast->GetBasicType(lldb::eBasicTypeVoid);
+  CompilerType param_type = t.GetRValueReferenceType();
+  CompilerType function_type =
+      m_ast->CreateFunctionType(return_type, &param_type, /*num_params*/ 1,
+                                /*variadic=*/false, /*quals*/ 0U);
+  bool is_virtual = false;
+  bool is_static = false;
+  bool is_inline = false;
+  bool is_explicit = true;
+  bool is_attr_used = false;
+  bool is_artificial = false;
+  m_ast->AddMethodToCXXRecordType(
+      t.GetOpaqueQualType(), class_name, nullptr, function_type,
+      lldb::AccessType::eAccessPublic, is_virtual, is_static, is_inline,
+      is_explicit, is_attr_used, is_artificial);
+
+  // Complete the definition and check the created record.
+  m_ast->CompleteTagDeclarationDefinition(t);
+  auto *record = llvm::cast<CXXRecordDecl>(ClangUtil::GetAsTagDecl(t));
+  // We can't call defaultedCopyConstructorIsDeleted() as this requires that
+  // the Decl passes through Sema which will actually compute this field.
+  // Instead we check that there is no copy constructor declared by the user
+  // which only leaves a non-deleted defaulted copy constructor as an option
+  // that our record will have no simple copy constructor.
+  EXPECT_FALSE(record->hasUserDeclaredCopyConstructor());
+  EXPECT_FALSE(record->hasSimpleCopyConstructor());
+}
+
+TEST_F(TestClangASTContext, TestNotDeletingUserCopyCstrDueToMoveCStr) {
+  // Tests that we don't delete the a user-defined copy constructor when
+  // a move constructor is provided.
+  // See also the TestDeletingImplicitCopyCstrDueToMoveCStr test.
+  llvm::StringRef class_name = "S";
+  CompilerType t = clang_utils::createRecord(*m_ast, class_name);
+  m_ast->StartTagDeclarationDefinition(t);
+
+  CompilerType return_type = m_ast->GetBasicType(lldb::eBasicTypeVoid);
+  bool is_virtual = false;
+  bool is_static = false;
+  bool is_inline = false;
+  bool is_explicit = true;
+  bool is_attr_used = false;
+  bool is_artificial = false;
+  // Create a move constructor.
+  {
+    CompilerType param_type = t.GetRValueReferenceType();
+    CompilerType function_type =
+        m_ast->CreateFunctionType(return_type, &param_type, /*num_params*/ 1,
+                                  /*variadic=*/false, /*quals*/ 0U);
+    m_ast->AddMethodToCXXRecordType(
+        t.GetOpaqueQualType(), class_name, nullptr, function_type,
+        lldb::AccessType::eAccessPublic, is_virtual, is_static, is_inline,
+        is_explicit, is_attr_used, is_artificial);
+  }
+  // Create a copy constructor.
+  {
+    CompilerType param_type = t.GetLValueReferenceType().AddConstModifier();
+    CompilerType function_type =
+        m_ast->CreateFunctionType(return_type, &param_type, /*num_params*/ 1,
+                                  /*variadic=*/false, /*quals*/ 0U);
+    m_ast->AddMethodToCXXRecordType(
+        t.GetOpaqueQualType(), class_name, nullptr, function_type,
+        lldb::AccessType::eAccessPublic, is_virtual, is_static, is_inline,
+        is_explicit, is_attr_used, is_artificial);
+  }
+
+  // Complete the definition and check the created record.
+  m_ast->CompleteTagDeclarationDefinition(t);
+  auto *record = llvm::cast<CXXRecordDecl>(ClangUtil::GetAsTagDecl(t));
+  EXPECT_TRUE(record->hasUserDeclaredCopyConstructor());
+}