tbaeder added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/Interp/ByteCodeExprGen.cpp:920
+
+ Condition->dump();
+ if (!this->visit(Condition))
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> This meant to be here?
Nope! :(
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/Interp/ByteCodeExprGen.cpp:921
+ Condition->dump();
+ if (!this->visit(Condition))
+ return false;
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> Is this condition supposed to be just a 'visit', or should this be using the
> functor?
The visit is correct here, the functor is just for the true/false expr.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/Interp/ByteCodeExprGen.h:200
+ using ExprVisitorFunc = std::function<bool(const Expr *)>;
+ bool visitConditional(const AbstractConditionalOperator *E,
+ ExprVisitorFunc VisitFunc);
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> I'd probably rather make this a template taking a functor, rather than
> bringing in the atrocities that come with std::function.
Alright, will look into that
================
Comment at: clang/test/AST/Interp/records.cpp:339
+
+namespace ConditionalInit {
+ struct S { int a; };
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> Did this not work before? I don't see what part of teh code changes makes
> this work?
We call `visitInitializer` also when the return value is constructed in the
calling function, so the return statement in `getS()` exercises the code added.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D141497/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D141497
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
