cor3ntin added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/Attr.td:3048
}];
+ let ParseArgumentsAsUnevaluated = 1;
}
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> I don't think we should reuse this flag this way. This flag is for the
> traditional sense of "unevaluated", but unevaluated string literals are a
> different kind of beast. I think that should be tracked on the argument
> level. We can either adjust:
> ```
> class StringArgument<string name, bit opt = 0> : Argument<name, opt>;
> ```
> so that it takes another bit for whether the string is unevaluated or not, or
> we could add a new subclass for `UnevaluatedStringArgument`. Then
> ClangAttrEmitter.cpp would look at this information when emitting the switch
> cases.
This is the previous approach i forgot to fixup everywhere.
My current approach is to always consider StringArgument unevaluated.
I don't think it make sense to have both StringArgument and
UnevaluatedStringArgument.
Currently in all the places we accept StringArgument, we check it's a possibly
parenthesized StringLiteral
If you want an evaluated string literal, an expression that produce a const
char* or something should work
================
Comment at: llvm/cmake/modules/HandleLLVMOptions.cmake:608
# based on object lifetime.
- add_flag_if_supported("-fno-lifetime-dse" CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS)
+ # add_flag_if_supported("-fno-lifetime-dse" CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS)
endif ( LLVM_COMPILER_IS_GCC_COMPATIBLE )
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Spurious change. ;-)
I've been battling with that for weeks, that flag completely breaks my IDE, not
sure why. It was inevitable that it ended up in a commit :|
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D105759/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D105759
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
