erichkeane added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:9573 - checkTypeSupport(NewFD->getType(), D.getBeginLoc(), NewFD); + if (D.getFunctionDefinitionKind() != FunctionDefinitionKind::Declaration) + checkTypeSupport(NewFD->getType(), D.getBeginLoc(), NewFD); ---------------- asavonic wrote: > erichkeane wrote: > > Why are we not checking declarations here? This doesn't seem right to me. > > At least in the offload languages, we still need to check declarations. > > Also, if something is a problem with a declaration, why is it not a problem > > with defaulted/deleted? > > Why are we not checking declarations here? This doesn't seem right to me. > > At least in the offload languages, we still need to check declarations. > > I assume that if if a function is declared and not used, then it is discarded > and no code is generated for it. So it should not really matter if it uses an > "unsupported" type. > This is important for `long double`, because there are C standard library > functions that have `long double` arguments. We skip diagnostics for > declarations to avoid errors from standard library headers when the type is > actually not used. > > > Also, if something is a problem with a declaration, why is it not a problem > > with defaulted/deleted? > > If we can expect that defaulted or deleted functions never result in a code > with unsupported types, then we can exclude them as well. Something like this > perhaps? > ``` > void no_long_double(long double) = delete; > ``` The problem is that these declarations could be called, right? So are we catching something like: ``` void has_long_double(long double d); .... has_long_double(1.0); ``` The deleted types shouldn't result in code being generated, but default will absolutely result in code being generated. Though I guess I can't think of a situation where we would have a defaulted function that could take a `long double` anyway. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D98895/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D98895 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
