aaron.ballman added a comment. In D122627#3417919 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122627#3417919>, @beanz wrote:
> In D122627#3417557 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122627#3417557>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> Are you sure that's what you want? This returns true for a static C++ member >> function, false for a static free function, and false for within an unnamed >> namespace, and true otherwise. > > You're right this isn't quite right, but getting closer... HLSL doesn't > support unnamed namespaces, and we only support static free functions by > accident... (the current compiler ignores static on free functions). > > This actually revealed some gaps in the documentation for HLSL, I've gone > back and gotten feedback from my team's HLSL expert and I think I've got the > right set of constraints for where this can be applied now (clang will even > have this better than the HLSL compiler). SGTM, thanks for digging into it! >> Also, I didn't see any new test coverage for function merging behavior. > > Doh! I knew I was forgetting something. Juggling too many balls today. I'll > get that covered too! No worries, thanks for following up on it. :-) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D122627/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D122627 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
