cor3ntin accepted this revision.
cor3ntin added inline comments.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/TreeTransform.h:10516
TreeTransform<Derived>::TransformUserDefinedLiteral(UserDefinedLiteral *E) {
- if (FunctionDecl *FD = E->getDirectCallee())
- SemaRef.MarkFunctionReferenced(E->getBeginLoc(), FD);
- return SemaRef.MaybeBindToTemporary(E);
+ return TransformCallExpr(E);
}
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > cor3ntin wrote:
> > > erichkeane wrote:
> > > > I THINK you have to do this by doing
> > > > `getDerived().TransformCallExpr(E)`.
> > > >
> > > Oh yes, good point
> > Hmmm, don't we want this level of transformation to kick in, not the
> > derived? e.g., another approach would be to remove the definition of this
> > function entirely so that the recursive AST visitor calls
> > `TransformCallExpr()` instead?
> No, the idea is that `TreeTransform` is inherited by other 'instantiator'
> types. IF those types do something special for `CallExpr`, we want this to
> ALSO do the same thing as `CallExpr`.
>
> I was also thinking about removing the function altogether. I just couldn't
> remember if `TreeTransform` did that right :) I'd suggest that if possible.
I tried to remove the overload entirely, clang was deeply unhappy :)
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D122586/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D122586
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
