hokein marked an inline comment as done.
hokein added a subscriber: rsmith.
hokein added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp:4320
+ if (!RD->hasDefinition())
+ return APValue();
APValue Struct(APValue::UninitStruct(), RD->getNumBases(),
----------------
sammccall wrote:
> This doesn't look all that safe - you're using a `None` value to indicate
> failure, but no current code path does that and none of the callers seem to
> check for failure.
> (e.g. `evaluateVarDecl` returns true instead of false).
> Presumably we're going to get a diagnostic somewhere (though it's not
> completely obvious to me) but can we be sure we won't assume this value has
> the right type somewhere down the line?
>
> I get the feeling this is correct and I don't have enough context to
> understand why... how about you :-)
I don't have a promising explanation neither.
I didn't find a better way to model failures in `getDefaultInitValue`. This
function is used in multiple places of this file (and I'm not sure whether we
should change it).
@rsmith any thoughts?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D80981/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D80981
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
