rjmccall added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp:8175
DeclaratorChunk::FunctionTypeInfo &FTI = D.getFunctionTypeInfo();
- if (FTI.TypeQuals != 0) {
- if (FTI.TypeQuals & Qualifiers::Const)
- Diag(D.getIdentifierLoc(), diag::err_invalid_qualified_constructor)
- << "const" << SourceRange(D.getIdentifierLoc());
- if (FTI.TypeQuals & Qualifiers::Volatile)
- Diag(D.getIdentifierLoc(), diag::err_invalid_qualified_constructor)
- << "volatile" << SourceRange(D.getIdentifierLoc());
- if (FTI.TypeQuals & Qualifiers::Restrict)
- Diag(D.getIdentifierLoc(), diag::err_invalid_qualified_constructor)
- << "restrict" << SourceRange(D.getIdentifierLoc());
+ if (FTI.MethodQualifiers && FTI.MethodQualifiers->getTypeQualifiers() != 0) {
+ auto DiagQual = [&](DeclSpec::TQ TypeQual, StringRef QualName,
----------------
Anastasia wrote:
> rjmccall wrote:
> > Anastasia wrote:
> > > rjmccall wrote:
> > > > I think you should add a `hasMethodQualifiers` method to FTI that does
> > > > this check. Note that it needs to check for attributes, too, and I
> > > > think you need to figure out some way to generalize `forEachCVRUQual`
> > > > to cover those.
> > > Are there any attributes I should handle currently?
> > >
> > > Also are you suggesting to add another `forEach...` method or extend
> > > existing? If the latter, I might not be able to use it in all places I
> > > use it now.
> > Adding another method might be easier. How many clients actually use the
> > TQ?
> In **DeclSpec.cpp** I definitely need just TQ. I am not sure about
> **SemaType.cpp**. All other places (3x) I guess should be possible to
> generalize. Although I am not very clear if I should be checking all attr. It
> might be a bit exhaustive since the use cases are for the function?
>
> Perhaps, I could add an extra helper `forEachQualifier` that can call
> `forEachCVRUQual` and then I could add a FIXME to complete the rest. We can
> extend it as we discover what's missing. For example I will add address
> spaces there in my next patch. Would this make sense?
>
> As for `hasMethodQualifiers` just to be clear I would need to check for all
> qualifiers including reference qualifier, attributes, etc?
That seems like a reasonable short-term plan. Maybe there needs to be some way
to describe an individual qualifier; we can hash that out in a separate patch.
> As for `hasMethodQualifiers` just to be clear I would need to check for all
> qualifiers including reference qualifier, attributes, etc?
Maybe, although at least one of the cases below wants to check for
ref-qualifiers separately. Maybe it should be `hasMethodTypeQualifiers`, and
it implies that `MethodQualifiers->forEachQualifier` will invoke the callback
at least once.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D55948/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D55948
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
