sammccall accepted this revision.
sammccall added inline comments.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/ComputeDependence.cpp:174
ExprDependence clang::computeDependence(NoInitExpr *E) {
return toExprDependence(E->getType()->getDependence()) &
ExprDependence::Instantiation;
----------------
hokein wrote:
> sammccall wrote:
> > I'm not terribly sure of the implications of not propagating the error bit
> > here. I tend to think that "contains errors" most closely follows
> > instantiation-dependence (i.e. it's fairly strict/lexical), so I'd consider
> > propagating it here.
> >
> > BTW, DesignatedInitUpdateExpr seems to have totally broken dependence
> > computations - it's always non-dependent! (Not introduced by this
> > refactoring, I think). Any idea what's up there?
> you mean `DesignatedInitExpr`? I didn't see any problem there, why it is
> always non-dependent?
no, DesignatedInitUpdateExpr. There's no computeDependence function, it just
marks itself as non-dependent in the constructor.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/ComputeDependence.cpp:662
+ if (C)
+ D |= C->getDependence() & ExprDependence::Error;
+ }
----------------
rather than whitelisting the error bit, blacklist the UnexpandedPack bit?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D65591/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D65591
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
