asavonic 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); ---------------- erichkeane wrote: > 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. > 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); > ``` Yes, we catch this when the function is called (see below). This is done in `Sema::DiagnoseUseOfDecl`. > 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. Thank you. I'll update the patch to exclude deleted functions. ================ Comment at: clang/test/Sema/x86-no-x87.c:35 +#endif + return ld_args(x, y); +} ---------------- This is the case where a declaration is called. 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
