ChuanqiXu accepted this revision.
ChuanqiXu added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM basically. I still feel we need a FIXME there. But I don't want to block
this for this reason especially we need to land this before the branch.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:15258
+ // units. Deleted and Defaulted functions are implicitly inline (but the
+ // inline state is not set at this point, so check the BodyKind explicitly).
if (getLangOpts().CPlusPlusModules && currentModuleIsHeaderUnit() &&
----------------
iains wrote:
> ChuanqiXu wrote:
> > I prefer to add a FIXME here to say that we need to find a better place for
> > the check to eliminate the unnecessary check for `BodyKind `. The current
> > check for `BodyKind` looks a little bit hacky to me.
> When the patch was originally done, this was found to be a good place to do
> the check (i.e. less duplication of testing and to avoid duplication of
> diagnostics) so I do not think I agree that there is a FIXME to move it.
>
> BodyKind is already used elsewhere in this function for similar purposes - it
> does not look hacky to me.
It looks hacky to me since we shouldn't care if it is deleted or defaulted here
and it should be enough to check `FD->isInlied()`. And I don't see similar
usage of `BodyKind ` in this function.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:15261
+ FD->getFormalLinkage() == Linkage::ExternalLinkage &&
+ !FD->isInvalidDecl() && BodyKind == FnBodyKind::Other &&
+ !FD->isInlined()) {
----------------
iains wrote:
> ChuanqiXu wrote:
> > It looks like we need to check `FD->isThisDeclarationADefinition()` too.
> >
> > And personally, I prefer to check BodyKind explicitly. Otherwise the
> > readers need to checkout the definition of `FnBodyKind` to understand the
> > code.
> > It looks like we need to check `FD->isThisDeclarationADefinition()` too.
>
> This is an unnecessary test, it will always return true at this point.
>
> > And personally, I prefer to check BodyKind explicitly. Otherwise the
> > readers need to checkout the definition of `FnBodyKind` to understand the
> > code.
>
> You prefer two tests instead of one?
> OK, I guess
> This is an unnecessary test, it will always return true at this point.
Oh, I found it now. It may be better to have an assertion
`assert(FD->isThisDeclarationADefinition())`.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D141908/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D141908
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
