rsmith added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D49511#1206265, @rsmith wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D49511#1194716, @leonardchan wrote: > > > @rsmith any more feedback on this current version? If it still looks > > incorrect to use the record this way, I don't mind simplifying it to work > > on lvalue to rvalue conversions without checking for a leading address > > space operation. > > > I've been thinking more about cleaner ways to implement this (and in > particular, approaches that will provide more reasonable semantics in C++ -- > allowing references to `noderef`, for example). We want to disallow operands > of type `noderef T` to all operations by default, and only allow very > specific operations on lvalues of type `noderef T` -- taking the address, > performing member accesses, lvalue casts. The most natural way to get that > effect would be to add a new form of placeholder type for a "dereferenced > noderef" expression, that `CheckPlaceholderExpr` rejects, and that we add > explicit support for in the contexts where such a construct is valid. (This > is similar to how we handle overloaded function names and bound member > function expressions in C++, for example.) (When we reach a context that > "consumes" a dereferenced noderef expression, we'd need to go back and patch > up its type, but I think that can be handled in a straightforward way.) > > I think we should also treat `noderef` more like a type qualifier: as an > important example, if we have a pointer or reference to `noderef struct X`, > then member access for a member of type `T` should give an lvalue of type > `noderef T`. Sorry, I forgot to say: I do not think we need to do this for the initial version of this functionality. This is mostly about cleanly extending the functionality to cover more C++ constructs. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D49511 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
