tbaeder added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/Interp/ByteCodeEmitter.cpp:30
if (!FuncDecl->isDefined(FuncDecl) ||
- (!FuncDecl->hasBody() && FuncDecl->willHaveBody()))
- return nullptr;
+ (FuncDecl->hasBody() && FuncDecl->willHaveBody()))
+ HasBody = false;
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> `hasBody()` returns `true` if any body in the redeclaration chain already has
> a body, so I'm surprised to see this change -- I don't know if we reset
> `willHaveBody()` when we give the function a body, but the logic here seems
> wrong to me.
I was confused by your question, but it's just about `hasBody()` vs
`!hasBody()`, right? The old code used a negation and of course that way it
makes sense, at least the way I read it. Yes I forgot the negation. :)
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/Interp/Program.h:97
Function *createFunction(const FunctionDecl *Def, Ts &&... Args) {
+ Def = Def->getCanonicalDecl();
auto *Func = new Function(*this, Def, std::forward<Ts>(Args)...);
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Are you trying to get the `FunctionDecl` which represents the function
> definition, or do you really mean you want the first declaration in the
> redecl chain?
Whether or not the function has a body is irrelevant here, I think. The `Def`
here is just used for caching. So the first one makes sense, doesn't it?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D136936/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D136936
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
