nwilson added a comment.
I'll make the fixes based on the comments, but had question about the
FunctionTypeInfo in the meantime.
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:7447-7450
@@ -7446,1 +7446,6 @@
+ if (const FunctionProtoType *FPT = R->getAs<FunctionProtoType>()) {
+ if (FPT->hasExceptionSpec()) {
+ auto LocBeg = D.getFunctionTypeInfo().getExceptionSpecLocBeg();
+ auto LocEnd = D.getFunctionTypeInfo().getExceptionSpecLocEnd();
+ Diag(LocBeg, diag::err_function_concept_exception_spec)
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> This will assert if there isn't a `FunctionTypeInfo` for the declaration,
> which can theoretically happen if it's declared via an (ill-formed today)
> `typedef`. (It also might not provide a source range if the exception
> specification is implicit, for instance because the function template is a
> destructor or deallocation function, but passing an empty SourceRange to the
> FixItHint should just result it in being ignored.)
Hmm, I'm not sure if we'd run into that case because I don't believe we can
have a `concept` specified as a typedef (check is yet to be added) and a check
exists for being in a non-namespace scope. Do you think a check should still be
added verifying that the FunctionTypeInfo exists?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D11789
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
