================
@@ -8207,6 +8207,14 @@ ExprResult InitializationSequence::Perform(Sema &S,
Kind.getRange().getEnd());
} else {
CurInit = new (S.Context) ImplicitValueInitExpr(Step->Type);
+ // Note the return value isn't used to return early
+ // to preserve the AST as best as possible even though an error
+ // might have occurred. For struct initialization it also allows
+ // all field assignments to be checked rather than bailing on the
+ // first error.
----------------
Sirraide wrote:
> It would be superfluous if not for the part about struct initialization. To
> me that is really not very obvious.
That’s fair. I might just be to used to this as a pattern. Commenting *why* we
don’t just throw the entire thing out of the window here and still try to keep
operating on it even if this fails is probably fine.
> I've changed the comments to just be.
>
> ```
> // Note the return value isn't used to return a ExprError() when
> // initialization fails . For struct initialization allows all field
> // assignments to be checked rather than bailing on the first error.
> ```
I’d honestly shorten it even more to just:
```
// Don't return here so we can still check field assingments.
```
because e.g. the fact that ‘the return value isn't used to return a ExprError()
when initialization fails’ is apparent from the fact that... there is no
`return` statement here. ;Þ
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/106321
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
