fhahn added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp:16727-16728
QualType TyA = A.get()->getType();
- if (checkMathBuiltinElementType(*this, ArgLoc, TyA))
+ if (checkMathBuiltinElementType(*this, ArgLoc, TyA) ||
+ ExtraCheck(TyA, ArgLoc))
return true;
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> In some ways, it's a not really ideal that we split the type checking like
> this. `SemaBuiltinElementwiseMathOneArg()` checks some type validity and the
> caller checks some more type validity, so there's no one location to know
> what types are actually expected for any given builtin calling this.
>
> Would it be reasonable to instead hoist all the type checking code out of
> `SemaBuiltinElementwiseMathOneArg()` and not pass in a functor to it, but
> instead check the `CallExpr` type after the call returns? We could also fix
> up the function name to be a bit less nonsensical at the same time, like
> renaming it to `PrepareBuiltinElementwiseMathOneArgCall()` or something along
> those lines?
> Would it be reasonable to instead hoist all the type checking code out of
> SemaBuiltinElementwiseMathOneArg() and not pass in a functor to it, but
> instead check the CallExpr type after the call returns?
Yeah that sounds better!
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D114688/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D114688
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
