tbaeder marked an inline comment as done.
tbaeder added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/Interp/ByteCodeExprGen.h:263
+ QualType T = E->getType();
+ if (const auto *PT = dyn_cast<PointerType>(T))
+ T = PT->getPointeeType();
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> We are de-pointering here, why not de-referencing?
>
> If we are OK with that, we can do this as:
>
> ``` if (const auto *RD = T->getPointeeCXXRecordDecl())
> return RD;
> return T->getAsCXXRecordDecl();
> ```
> and most of the work is done for you.
>
No reason, as usual I just didn't know this was a thing. Thanks!
================
Comment at: clang/test/AST/Interp/records.cpp:165
+
+class A : public Base {
+public:
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> shafik wrote:
> > How about also testing `private` and `virtual` as well as multiple bases.
> I like the idea of testing virtual bases as well.
How would that work in a constexpr context? I get:
```
array.cpp:48:15: error: constexpr constructor not allowed in class with virtual
base class
constexpr D() : A(17) {}
^
array.cpp:45:13: note: virtual base class declared here
class B : public virtual A {};
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1 error generated.
```
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D135025/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D135025
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
