nickdesaulniers added a comment.
Actually, it looks like:
diff --git a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp
index 69d2ef631872..8e77cdef2ed5 100644
--- a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp
+++ b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp
@@ -10927,6 +10927,10 @@ bool Sema::CheckFunctionDeclaration(Scope *S,
FunctionDecl *NewFD,
}
if (Redeclaration) {
+ if (cast<FunctionDecl>(OldDecl)->isInlineBuiltinDeclaration() &&
!NewFD->isInlineBuiltinDeclaration()) {
+ // Set a flag on NewFD that it's a shadowed gnu_inline that should be
+ // emitted, or on OldDecl that it should not be emitted?
+ }
// NewFD and OldDecl represent declarations that need to be
// merged.
if (MergeFunctionDecl(NewFD, OldDecl, S, MergeTypeWithPrevious)) {
might detect what you need. Can we perhaps use those checks there (when we
have already detected a redeclaration) to perhaps set new members (to be added)
on `FunctionDecl` that they shouldn't be emitted or not because they are this
weird case? Then `CodeGenFunction::GenerateCode` can simply check that flag,
then erase the existing function (or not generate it in the first place by
setting a flag on `OldDecl` perhaps?). No redecl walking for every
FunctionDecl required.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D112059/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D112059
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
