erichkeane added a comment.
I'm not sure I'm grokking hte difference between the ExtraBitfields and
ExtParamInfos here. Also, the 'hasBitfields' seems like the answer should just
be 'no' in the case when its 'no'...
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/AST/Type.h:4103
bool hasExtraBitfields() const {
- return hasExtraBitfields(getExceptionSpecType());
+ assert((getExceptionSpecType() != EST_Dynamic ||
+ FunctionTypeBits.HasExtraBitfields) &&
----------------
Why is asking if we DO have extra bitfields an assert here? I would think this
is a valid question...
Why would 'dynamic' and extra-bitfields be exclusive here?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/Type.cpp:3219
+ ExtraBits = FunctionTypeExtraBitfields();
+ } else
+ FunctionTypeBits.HasExtraBitfields = false;
----------------
this else should have braces, since the 'if' above does. (nit).
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D126642/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D126642
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
