-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
fix: crash on unimplemented when populating overloads destructor entry #922
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: develop
Are you sure you want to change the base?
fix: crash on unimplemented when populating overloads destructor entry #922
Conversation
An automated preview of the documentation is available at https://922.mrdocs.prtest2.cppalliance.org/index.html |
1a631d4
to
91e0e11
Compare
An automated preview of the documentation is available at https://922.mrdocs.prtest2.cppalliance.org/index.html |
@@ -76,6 +76,10 @@ populateOverloadsFromClass(OverloadsInfo& I) | |||
return true; | |||
} | |||
case FunctionClass::Destructor: | |||
{ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Destructor overloads?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Isn't the problem in the calling function?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If you accept the logical consistency about having a destructor overload set which can only be a single element.
The resulting adoc looks perfectly reasonable. Maybe we could just rename the brief to 'Destructor' instead of 'Destructors'?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes. You could be correct in theoretical terms. What I mean is that, in practical terms, as an implementation detail of MrDocs, where an overload set must have at least two members, that code is unreachable. If it's being reached, there's a bug somewhere else we need to fix. Or maybe it should be reachable for some reason I haven't understood yet.
Even if the resulting adoc looks good in terms of what we were able to investigate so far, we still have a problem here, and we have to understand why it's happening and what else it's affecting in the corpus and the output.
I am not sure why this is not seen in CI presently, but I can reproduce it when building mrdocs from the llvm version bundled in homebrew (currently 20.1.7).
91e0e11
to
b864c03
Compare
An automated preview of the documentation is available at https://922.mrdocs.prtest2.cppalliance.org/index.html |
I am not sure why this is not seen in CI presently, but I can reproduce it when building mrdocs from the llvm version bundled in homebrew (currently 20.1.7).