================
@@ -15845,8 +15845,10 @@ void Sema::CheckCoroutineWrapper(FunctionDecl *FD) {
RecordDecl *RD = FD->getReturnType()->getAsRecordDecl();
if (!RD || !RD->getUnderlyingDecl()->hasAttr<CoroReturnTypeAttr>())
return;
- // Allow `get_return_object()`.
- if (FD->getDeclName().isIdentifier() &&
+ // Allow some_promise_type::get_return_object().
+ // Since we are still in the promise definition, we can only do this
+ // heuristically as the promise may not be yet associated to a coroutine.
+ if (isa<CXXMethodDecl>(FD) && FD->getDeclName().isIdentifier() &&
FD->getName().equals("get_return_object") && FD->param_empty())
return;
----------------
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
> I do not think that would work either. For example, consider TUs with only
> promise definitions and no coroutine definitions. These attr would not be
> available even in the end of TU.
Oh, yeah. I didn't think about modules : ).
> @ChuanqiXu9 is it fine to add attributes to existing functions conditioned
> on how they are used rather than how they are defined?
Then it is troublesome to use this attribute, which violates our intention.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77066
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
