cor3ntin added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeGenCXX/cxx2b-deducing-this.cpp:4
+
+struct TrivialStruct {
+ void explicit_object_function(this TrivialStruct) {}
----------------
cor3ntin wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > I'd like to see more codegen tests in general -- for example, a test that
> > demonstrates we properly handle code like:
> > ```
> > struct B {
> > virtual void f();
> > };
> >
> > struct T {};
> > struct D3 : B {
> > void f(this T&); // Okay, not an override
> > };
> >
> > void func() {
> > T t;
> > t.f(); // Verify this calls D3::f() and not B::f()
> > }
> > ```
> > but also tests that show that we do the correct thing for calling
> > conventions (do explicit object parameter functions act as `__fastcall`
> > functions?), explicit object parameters in lambdas, call through a pointer
> > to member function, and so on.
> >
> > Another test that could be interesting is how chained calls look (roughly):
> > ```
> > struct S {
> > void foo(this const S&);
> > };
> >
> > struct T {
> > S bar(this const &T);
> > };
> >
> > void func() {
> > T t;
> > t.bar().foo();
> > }
> > ```
> That first example is ill-formed (it is an override, not allowed)
>
> I will need help for codegen tests.
> For `__thiscall`, are we even doing the same thing?
> https://compiler-explorer.com/z/KTea6W36T
NVM, just different optimization levels
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D140828/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D140828
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
