On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 3:16 AM Alex Lorenz <arpha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> arphaman updated this revision to Diff 75403. > arphaman added a comment. > > The updated patch improves error handling and adds a test for the fixit. > > > If we issue a fixit we should recover as-if the code was written with > the fixit in. Does this code do that? (can we test it? I know we test some > fixits - not sure it's necessary/worthwhile to test them all, but maybe we > have a good idiom for testing that the recovery is correct) > > This code does perform recovery, but the constructed AST for the > destructor calls is different from the AST that would have been constructed > if the code was correct: we still end up building the pseudo destructor > expression. I'm not sure how important is that though, so please let me > know if I should try and make the ASTs the same. > I imagine we need the matching AST, but don't know for sure/how the difference might result in different behavior downstream (CC'd Mr. Smith in case he can quickly provide an opinion here) > > > Repository: > rL LLVM > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D25817 > > Files: > lib/Sema/SemaExprCXX.cpp > test/CXX/special/class.dtor/p10-0x.cpp > test/FixIt/fixit.cpp > test/SemaCXX/pseudo-destructors.cpp > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
