rjmccall added a comment. In D54862#1333700 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D54862#1333700>, @ebevhan wrote:
> I'm also a bit confused about the semantics that this patch is applying to > function types. It mostly seems to concern the extra trailing Qualifiers on > CXXMethodDecl to store the addrspace quals, but in some places > (SemaType:4842, SemaDecl:3198) it seems to be applying the address space to > the function type itself, which certainly seems like something else to me. A > function with an address space qualified type would (to me, at least) be a > function *located* in that address space, not one qualified to take a `this` > from that address space. Yeah, there may be some confusion about that, and unfortunately it's easy to miss in the review. But yes, I agree that address-space qualifiers are in principle one of the few qualifiers that make sense to be able to have (in a normal way) on function types. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D54862/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D54862 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
