rjmccall added a comment.
@rsmith This is a big enough architectural change that I'd appreciate your
sign-off on the basic approach.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:3759
unsigned BuiltinID;
- if (Old->isImplicit() && (BuiltinID = Old->getBuiltinID())) {
+ bool RevertedBuiltin{Old->getIdentifier()->hasRevertedBuiltin()};
+ if (Old->isImplicit() &&
----------------
rjmccall wrote:
> The old code didn't check this eagerly. The `Old->isImplicit()` check is
> unlikely to fire; please make sure that we don't do any extra work unless it
> does.
Since BuiltinAttr is inherited, we should keep the isImplicit check, because we
only want to use a special diagnostic when "redeclaring" the implicit builtin
declaration.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:8880
+ }
+ }
+
----------------
Hmm. I'm concerned about not doing any sort of semantic compatibility check
here before we assign the function special semantics. Have we really never
done those in C++?
If not, I wonder if we can reasonably make an implicit declaration but just
make it hidden from lookup.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D77491/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D77491
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
