cor3ntin added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp:18171
+bool Sema::CheckOverridingExplicitObjectMembers(CXXMethodDecl *New,
+ const CXXMethodDecl *Old) {
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> This function name feels off to me; would it make more sense as
> `DiagnoseExplicitObjectOverride()` or something along those lines? It's not
> really doing a general check, just checking one specific property.
I don't disagree but it is consistent with other function in the vicinity
CheckOverridingFunctionAttributes
CheckOverridingFunctionReturnType
CheckPureMethod
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp:20550-20554
+static void FixDependencyOfIdExpressionsInLambdaWithDependentObjectParameter(
+ Sema &SemaRef, ValueDecl *D, Expr *E) {
+ DeclRefExpr *ID = dyn_cast<DeclRefExpr>(E);
+ if (!ID || ID->isTypeDependent())
+ return;
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
>
ID is used later in the function
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaExprCXX.cpp:4330-4331
+ ExprResult Res = FixOverloadedFunctionReference(From, Found, Fn);
+ if (Res.isInvalid())
+ return ExprError();
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Do you have test coverage for this change or is it an NFC change?
Before this patch `FixOverloadedFunctionReference` would never fail, now it
can, in some places. I think it is covered by tests but I'll double check. The
change here is mechanical, the important changes are in
`FixOverloadedFunctionReference`
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaLambda.cpp:393-394
+ CXXRecordDecl *RD = Method->getParent();
+ if (Method->isDependentContext())
+ return;
+ if (RD->getLambdaCaptureDefault() == LambdaCaptureDefault::LCD_None &&
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Do we care that the method is a dependent context? I thought we'd be checking
> if the method itself is dependent?
How would you do that through its type?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaOverload.cpp:1299-1300
+
+ // We do not allow overloading based off of '__restrict'.
+ Q.removeRestrict();
+
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Just restrict? So `_Nonnull` is fine?
Good question. This was pre-existing code though. I'll think about it more
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D140828/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D140828
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
