sammccall accepted this revision.
sammccall added inline comments.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/ExprClassification.cpp:147
+ case Expr::RecoveryExprClass:
+ return ClassifyExprValueKind(Lang, E, E->getValueKind());
----------------
there's a block of cases with a similar implementation (near OpaqueValueKind),
maybe move there
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaOverload.cpp:12944
+ Fn->getBeginLoc(), RParenLoc, SubExprs,
+ ReturnType.isNull()
+ ? ReturnType
----------------
hokein wrote:
> sammccall wrote:
> > here we're splitting the type (e.g. int&&) into a type + VK, and passing
> > both to createrecoveryexpr.
> >
> > Why not do that on recoveryexpr side? e.g. if we request a recoveryexpr of
> > type int&, return an LValue recoveryexpr of type int?
> right, good idea, this is simpler. I was somehow taking `CallExpr` as a
> reference when writing this code.
Hmm, this does seem simpler to me but it also seems that a few places
deliberately make this mapping between two related concepts explicit.
Maybe we should at least have a comment on createrecoveryexpr that the value
category will be inferred from the (reference) type.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/recovery-expr-type.cpp:66
+
+namespace test4 {
+int &&f(int); // expected-note {{candidate function not viable}}
----------------
I liked the comment explaining the purpose of the test (no crash for wrong
value category)
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D83201/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D83201
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
