sdesmalen added a comment.
In D126642#3547284 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D126642#3547284>, @erichkeane
wrote:
> I'm not sure I'm grokking hte difference between the ExtraBitfields and
> ExtParamInfos here.
The reason I repurposed the bit was because I previously tried adding a bit to
`unsigned ExtInfo : 13;` but that fails
static_assert(sizeof(*this) <= 8 + sizeof(ExtQualsTypeCommonBase), "changing
bitfields changed sizeof(Type)!");
so perhaps incorrectly I assumed I couldn't add any new bits to FunctionType
and thought I'd repurpose this one bit, because it's only ever used for
FunctionProtoType (never for FunctionNoProtoType).
But I now realised I can just add an extra bit, so that we can leave this bit
as-is. What do you think?
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/AST/Type.h:4103
bool hasExtraBitfields() const {
- return hasExtraBitfields(getExceptionSpecType());
+ assert((getExceptionSpecType() != EST_Dynamic ||
+ FunctionTypeBits.HasExtraBitfields) &&
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> 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?
This assert is merely confirming that HasExtraBitfields **must** be true if the
ExceptionSpecType is `EST_Dynamic`, because that was the old behaviour (and I
wanted to avoid introducing failures if some code still assumed that
hasExtraBitfields == true, but for some reason HasExtraBitfields had not yet
been set to `true`).
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
