cor3ntin added a comment. FYI there are build failures. you probably need to rebase (visitAPValue does not seem to actually exist)
================ Comment at: clang/lib/AST/Interp/ByteCodeExprGen.cpp:767-772 + std::optional<PrimType> T = classify(E->getType()); + if (T && E->hasAPValueResult() && + this->visitAPValue(E->getAPValueResult(), *T, E)) + return true; + return this->delegate(E->getSubExpr()); ---------------- tbaeder wrote: > cor3ntin wrote: > > so if `visitAPValue` fails, we continue. Couldn't that lead to duplicated > > diagnostics? Shouldn't we simply return whatever `visitAPValue` returns > > unconditionally? > I did it this way because we don't handle all types of APValues in > `visitAPValue()` (think lvalues with an lvalue path), so in those cases we > need to visit the expression instead. If there is an `APValue` we're visting, > we're not emitting any diagnostics I think. Can you add a comment explaining that? I think it would help! thanks! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D158502/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D158502 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
