rymiel marked an inline comment as done.
rymiel added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Parse/ParseExprCXX.cpp:1283
ParseScope LambdaScope(this, Scope::LambdaScope | Scope::DeclScope |
Scope::FunctionDeclarationScope |
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> Ok, last bit, I promise :) I see that we set up the lambda scope here and
> push the lambda scope on 1287. Instead of passing a bool, could we just
> figure out the `IsLambdaRequiresClause` based on that instead? See
> definition of `PushLambdaScope` here:
> https://clang.llvm.org/doxygen/Sema_8cpp_source.html#l02141
>
> A test to see if that would work would be the one you have below, PLUS an
> example of a requires clause INSIDE of a lambda that itself isn't a lambda
> that would reproduce the warning(though I'm not convinced ATM that is
> possible, I don't think we allow a template inside block scope, unless there
> is some trick I'm too uncreative enough to come up with). If none exists,
> just checking the current scope would work and perhaps be more preferential.
>
> We do this rarely, but we do it at least in SemaStmt.cpp in
> ActOnCapScopeReturnStmt. Just a
> `dyn_cast<LambdaScopeInfo>(getCurFunction())` might be able to replace the
> bool all over the place.
Thank you, I knew there was probably some much cleaner way to do this that I
simply had no clue about due to my unfamiliarity. I've gone ahead and used
`dyn_cast<LambdaScopeInfo>(getCurFunction())`
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D146140/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D146140
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
