rjmccall added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33735#770318, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33735#770296, @ABataev wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33735#770288, @aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > > Can you help me to understand what problem is being solved with this new > > > attribute? Under what circumstances would the first argument be an > > > `ImplicitParamDecl` but not an implicit this or self? > > > > > > For captured regions an outlined function is created, where all parameters > > are ImplicitParamDecls. And the very first parameter is wrongly treated as > > 'this' argument of the member function. > > > Ah, thank you! That makes sense to me, but it begs the question: why an > attribute rather than a bit on ImplicitParamDecl? I agree: it would make more sense for ImplicitParamDecl to store a Kind that would always be provided at construction. https://reviews.llvm.org/D33735 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
