tra added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp:6576-6578
if (!ValType->isFloatingType())
return false;
+ if (!(AllowedType & AOAVT_FP))
----------------
Collapse into a single if statement: `if (!(ValType->isFloatingType() &&
(AllowedType & AOAVT_FP)))`
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp:6588
+ if (!IsAllowedValueType(ValType, ArithAllows)) {
+ assert(ArithAllows & AOAVT_Integer);
+ auto DID = ArithAllows & AOAVT_FP
----------------
Why do we expect a failed `IsAllowedValueType` check to fail only if we were
allowed integers? Is that because we assume that all atomic instructions
support integers?
If that's the case, I'd hoist the assertion and apply it right after we're done
setting `ArithAllows`. Alternatively, we could discard `AOAVT_Integer` and call
the enum `ArithOpExtraValueType`. Tracking a bit that's always set does not buy
us much, though it does make the code a bit more uniform. Up to you.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D150985/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D150985
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
