tbaeder added a comment. > Member pointers (for functions or for data) are weird in that they're not the > typical pointer width. They're actually a pointer and between one-to-three > other fields in a trenchcoat, depending on the circumstances. You generally > need the function pointer, but you also may need various offsets (to this, to > the vtable, etc). There's some more information about how it's done in MSVC > (which is different from Itanium ABI, but we can do what we want for the > constant expression interpreter): https://rants.vastheman.com/2021/09/21/msvc/ > > I don't think there's a problem with `FunctionPointer` per se, I'm more > wondering are you planning to also add a `MemberPointer` type or are you > planning to reuse `FunctionPointer` to handle function members (and > presumably something else for data members)? > > As for virtual functions in general, the standard has rules: > http://eel.is/c++draft/expr.const#5.6 and http://eel.is/c++draft/expr.const#7
I was thinking that the `dynamicDispatch` in https://godbolt.org/z/rf9Ks77Wo would be a good reproducer since the actual function to call is only known when calling `dynamicDispatch()`, but that example already works when doing a few changes to `classify()` the right types and adding a `if (BO->isPtrMemOP()) { return visit(RHS); }` to `VisitBinaryOperator()`. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D141472/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D141472 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
