faisalv added a comment.
Hmm - after having given this some more thought - I'm not as confident about
the best approach. Should we leverage the CXXThisTypeOverride mechanism (as
you had done in your initial patch) - and remove the computation entirely from
getCurrentThisType - or just remove CXXThisTypeOverride entirely and have
getCurrentThisType be smart enough to always figure out the 'this' type?
Admittedly, my slight bias is to smarty-pantify getCurrentThisType (and just
remove CXXThisTypeOverride if we can do it for all cases) - but I'd be
interested in the counterarguments against that. Does it really make sense to
leverage and maintain both approaches within the code-base?
Richard you have any thoughts on this (pun ;)?
Apologies Erik, for the waffle here - and thanks again for putting time into it.
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaExprCXX.cpp:971
@@ +970,3 @@
+ !ActiveTemplateInstantiations.empty()) {
+
+ // This is a lambda call operator that is being instantiated as a default
----------------
I wonder if we could just check that 'DC' is a CXXRecordDecl and just use it
(so avoid computing it again below)?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D21145
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
