tbaeder added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/Interp/ByteCodeEmitter.cpp:24-31
+ bool HasBody = true;
+
+ // Function is not defined at all or not yet. We will
+ // create a Function instance but not compile the body. That
+ // will (maybe) happen later.
if (!FuncDecl->isDefined(FuncDecl) ||
(!FuncDecl->hasBody() && FuncDecl->willHaveBody()))
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> tbaeder wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > .... negating the Boolean calculation and applying deMorgan's law did not
> > > make that code more clear, did it (assuming I did everything right)? If
> > > you agree, then I'm fine with the more complicated form and letting the
> > > optimizer make it faster.
> > I can see that going either way. I think your version is a more confusing
> > though because the two body conditions are coupled with the `isDefined`
> > condition. E.g. `HasBody` is `true` if `isDefined() && !willHaveBody()`,
> > which doesn't make sense to me I think.
> >
> > I think I just read this code too many times now. How does being defined
> > even relate to the function having a body? Should that code just be
> > `HasBody = hasBody() || willHaveBody()`?
> > I can see that going either way. I think your version is a more confusing
> > though because the two body conditions are coupled with the isDefined
> > condition. E.g. HasBody is true if isDefined() && !willHaveBody(), which
> > doesn't make sense to me I think.
>
> I'm glad we both are confused about the same thing!
>
> > I think I just read this code too many times now. How does being defined
> > even relate to the function having a body? Should that code just be HasBody
> > = hasBody() || willHaveBody()?
>
> I've not dug back in time to see how we got to that predicate in the first
> place, but my *hunch* is that this may have to do with implicit function
> definitions for things like special member functions. That's a case where you
> can have a function definition without a body. e.g.,
> ```
> struct S {
> S();
> };
>
> S::S() = default;
> ```
Well, any sort of digging usually just gets you to the //one// commit that
introduced all of the new constant interpreter :P
`willHaveBody()` isn't even relevant here, is it?
I think simply
```
bool hasBody = FuncDecl->isDefined() || FuncDecl->hasBody();
```
makes the most sense.
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
