iains marked 2 inline comments as done.
iains added a comment.
In D141908#4061409 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D141908#4061409>, @ChuanqiXu wrote:
> LGTM basically. I still feel we need a FIXME there. But I don't want to block
> this for this reason especially we need to land this before the branch.
Well.. we have time for another iteration, I will add the assert...
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:15258
+ // units. Deleted and Defaulted functions are implicitly inline (but the
+ // inline state is not set at this point, so check the BodyKind explicitly).
if (getLangOpts().CPlusPlusModules && currentModuleIsHeaderUnit() &&
----------------
ChuanqiXu wrote:
> iains wrote:
> > ChuanqiXu wrote:
> > > I prefer to add a FIXME here to say that we need to find a better place
> > > for the check to eliminate the unnecessary check for `BodyKind `. The
> > > current check for `BodyKind` looks a little bit hacky to me.
> > When the patch was originally done, this was found to be a good place to do
> > the check (i.e. less duplication of testing and to avoid duplication of
> > diagnostics) so I do not think I agree that there is a FIXME to move it.
> >
> > BodyKind is already used elsewhere in this function for similar purposes -
> > it does not look hacky to me.
> It looks hacky to me since we shouldn't care if it is deleted or defaulted
> here and it should be enough to check `FD->isInlied()`. And I don't see
> similar usage of `BodyKind ` in this function.
> It looks hacky to me since we shouldn't care if it is deleted or defaulted
> here and it should be enough to check `FD->isInlied()`.
that means checking much later and in muliple places, I think - but if you want
to make a follow-on patch, I will be happy to review.
> And I don't see similar usage of `BodyKind ` in this function.
line 15208?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:15261
+ FD->getFormalLinkage() == Linkage::ExternalLinkage &&
+ !FD->isInvalidDecl() && BodyKind == FnBodyKind::Other &&
+ !FD->isInlined()) {
----------------
ChuanqiXu wrote:
> iains wrote:
> > ChuanqiXu wrote:
> > > It looks like we need to check `FD->isThisDeclarationADefinition()` too.
> > >
> > > And personally, I prefer to check BodyKind explicitly. Otherwise the
> > > readers need to checkout the definition of `FnBodyKind` to understand the
> > > code.
> > > It looks like we need to check `FD->isThisDeclarationADefinition()` too.
> >
> > This is an unnecessary test, it will always return true at this point.
> >
> > > And personally, I prefer to check BodyKind explicitly. Otherwise the
> > > readers need to checkout the definition of `FnBodyKind` to understand the
> > > code.
> >
> > You prefer two tests instead of one?
> > OK, I guess
> > This is an unnecessary test, it will always return true at this point.
>
> Oh, I found it now. It may be better to have an assertion
> `assert(FD->isThisDeclarationADefinition())`.
yeah, I was thinking maybe to do that (it is kind of documenting that it is
always true - perhaps a comment would be better?)
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D141908/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D141908
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
