rsmith added a comment.
Thanks, this generally looks great.
It looks like we'll need some additional work on disambiguation to handle cases
like:
struct A { int n; } a;
void f() { auto(&a)->n = 0; }
I think that's valid, but right now we misparse it as a declaration of a
variable `&a`. (This syntax also resembles a function declaration with a
trailing return type, but that interpretation should be rejected for various
reasons, such as because `n` isn't a type.) This disambiguation failure seems
to be specific to `auto`; this similar case is parsed properly:
struct A { int n; } a;
using T = A*;
void f() { T(&a)->n = 1; }
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Parse/ParseDeclCXX.cpp:1032
+ // the typename-specifier in a function-style cast expression may
+ // be 'auto' since C++2b
Diag(Tok.getLocation(),
----------------
Nice catch :)
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaExprCXX.cpp:1481
+ } else if (Deduced) {
+ auto Inits = Exprs;
+ if (Exprs.size() == 1) {
----------------
Please use an explicit type here.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaExprCXX.cpp:1482-1486
+ if (Exprs.size() == 1) {
+ if (auto p = dyn_cast_or_null<InitListExpr>(Exprs[0])) {
+ Inits = MultiExprArg(p->getInits(), p->getNumInits());
+ }
+ }
----------------
You should only do this if `ListInitialization` is `true`. Otherwise we'll
accept the invalid syntax `auto({a})`.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CXX/expr/expr.post/expr.type.conv/p1-2b.cpp:19
+ foo(auto {a});
+ foo(auto(a));
+
----------------
We're missing a test that we reject `auto({a})`. I assume that's what this line
was intended to do.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D113393/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D113393
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
