tbaeder marked an inline comment as done.
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:
> > > 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.
> I think it's one or the other?
>
> `isDefined` searches for a function that's been defined by looking for
> something in the redecl chain that: is deleted as written, is defaulted, has
> a body, will have a body, has a body that's skipped, or has an attribute that
> causes the declaration to be a definition.
>
> By contrast, `hasBody` searches the redecl chain looking for a declaration
> that has not been defaulted and has a body or is template late parsed.
>
> So I *think* what you want is `FuncDecl->hasBody(FuncDecl)` to do the check
> and get the specific declaration with the body.
`FuncDecl->hasBody(FuncDecl)` sounds like it makes sense. None of the
variations break any of the existing tests, so I will trust you. :) Thanks
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
