cjdb added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Parse/ParseExpr.cpp:1750
+#undef TRANSFORM_TYPE_TRAIT_DEF
+ if (NextToken().is(tok::less)) {
+ Tok.setKind(tok::identifier);
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> Here you're checking for `trait<` and treating it as an identifier; elsewhere
> you're checking for `trait(` and treating it as a builtin. Is there a reason
> to treat `trait` followed by a token other than `(` or `<` inconsistently?
The parser needs to treat `trait<` as an identifier to accommodate libstdc++'s
usage of a few of these as alias templates. I've added a comment to explain why
in the code.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp:9251
+ BaseType->isBooleanType()) {
+ Diag(Loc, diag::err_make_signed_integral_only) << IsMakeSigned << BaseType;
+ return QualType();
----------------
cjdb wrote:
> rsmith wrote:
> > Should we support vector types here?
> Is it a conforming extension for `make_signed_t<int
> __attribute__((ext_vector_type(2)))>` to work?
Gentle ping.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/type-traits.cpp:3099-3100
+
+ { int a[T(__is_same(remove_pointer_t<int __attribute__((address_space(1)))
*>, int))]; }
+ { int a[T(__is_same(remove_pointer_t<S __attribute__((address_space(2))) *>,
S))]; }
+}
----------------
cjdb wrote:
> rsmith wrote:
> > It seems strange to remove the address space qualifier here, given that
> > this trait doesn't remove cv-qualifiers.
> Does `int __attribute__((address_space(1)))` make sense as a type? I thought
> it had to be a pointee.
Gentle ping.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D116203/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D116203
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
