rsmith added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/AST/ExprConcepts.h:502
ArrayRef<ParmVarDecl *> LocalParameters,
+ SourceLocation RParenLoc,
ArrayRef<concepts::Requirement *> Requirements,
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> Is this an unrelated change? Are paren locations required for mangling?
`requires (params) { blah; }` has a different mangling from `requires { blah;
}` -- in particular, the former introduces a new level of function parameters,
so references to enclosing function parameters are numbered differently in the
two. This applies even if `params` is empty or `void` (`requires () { ... }`
and `requires (void) { ... }` are both valid).
We previously generated the same AST for `requires { ... }` and `requires () {
... }`, which meant we couldn't mangle this correctly. Tracking the parens (or
at least their existence) fixes that (and also improves the AST fidelity for
tooling).
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/ItaniumMangle.cpp:5180
+ NotPrimaryExpr();
+ if (RE->getLParenLoc().isValid()) {
+ Out << "rQ";
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> What is happening here? What are we deriving from the validity of the paren?
> Or is this differentiating:
>
> `requires (something)` vs `requires C<T>` sorta thing?
Yes, the `rq` form is for requires expressions without a parameter list, and
the `rQ` form is for requires expressions with a parameter list.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D147655/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D147655
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
