aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/Interp/ByteCodeExprGen.cpp:213-214
+ if (BO->isPtrMemOp())
+ return this->visit(RHS);
+
----------------
tbaeder wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > Do we need similar changes for unary operators, pointer arithmetic
> > operators, etc?
> In what case would we need similar changes for those?
I could use some more explanation for the changes here then; I thought this was
to support overloaded binary operators. e.g.,
```
struct S {
virtual constexpr int operator+(S s) const {
return 12;
}
};
struct T : S {
constexpr int operator+(S s) const override {
return 100;
}
};
constexpr T t1, t2;
constexpr const S &s1 = t1, &s2 = t2;
constexpr const S s3, s4;
static_assert(s1 + s2 == 100);
static_assert(s3 + s4 == 12);
```
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/Interp/Context.cpp:121
+ if (T->isFunctionPointerType() || T->isFunctionReferenceType() ||
+ T->isFunctionProtoType())
+ return PT_FnPtr;
----------------
tbaeder wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > `isFunctionType()` in general?
> You mean additionally to those or as a replacement? `isFunctionType()` return
> false for function pointers it seems.
I mean instead of `T->isFunctionProtoType()`; a function without a prototype is
still a kind of FnPtr, right? (moot for C++ constexpr, but I'm wondering why
there's a requirement for a prototype or whether that's an oversight)
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D144164/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D144164
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
