beanz added a comment.
One comment inline. Update coming in a few minutes.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp:15252-15257
+ if (getLangOpts().HLSL) {
+ if (Opc == UO_AddrOf)
+ return ExprError(Diag(OpLoc, diag::err_hlsl_operator_unsupported) << 0);
+ if (Opc == UO_Deref)
+ return ExprError(Diag(OpLoc, diag::err_hlsl_operator_unsupported) << 1);
+ }
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> How should this interplay with overloaded operators on user-defined types? Is
> that case allowed so long as it doesn't form a pointer or a reference? (We
> should add test coverage for that.)
So, the "correct" end goal is that we don't support overloading those
operators. We have a few limitations on which operators we allow overloading
for, generally any operators that in normal use return references or pointers,
we don't allow you to overload.
That said, I wrote some test code to see where this falls over with my current
change:
```
struct Fish {
struct Fins {
int Left;
int Right;
};
int X;
int operator *() {
return X;
}
Fins operator ->() {
return Fins();
}
};
int gone_fishing() {
Fish F;
int Result = *F; // works... and is consistent with DXC
Result += F->Left; // error: member reference type 'Fish::Fins' is not a
pointer
return Result;
}
```
In the existing compiler we produce an error on definition of operators that
aren't supported. I'd like to handle improving the diagnostics for those
operators that way in a later patch if that is okay.
The `.*` and `.->` operators I couldn't get errors to actually trigger because
I couldn't think of a way to write them that wasn't dependent on getting a
member pointer, which errors and causes the remaining expression to not be
checked.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D123167/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D123167
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
