ABataev added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaCoroutine.cpp:237-244
+static UnresolvedSet<16> lookupOperatorCoawaitCall(Sema &SemaRef, Scope *S,
+ SourceLocation Loc,
+ Expr *E) {
UnresolvedSet<16> Functions;
SemaRef.LookupOverloadedOperatorName(OO_Coawait, S, E->getType(), QualType(),
Functions);
+ return Functions;
----------------
EricWF wrote:
> ABataev wrote:
> > Maybe it is better to add an argument `UnresolvedSetImpl &OpCandidates`?
> This seems like the best place to specify the concrete type now that
> everything else uses `UnresolvedSetImpl`.
Does really matter that it is `UnresolvedSet<16>`, but not `UnresolvedSet<8>`
or `UnresolvedSet<4>`? If not, you should not use `UnresolvedSet<16>` as the
param type or return type
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaCoroutine.cpp:301
+ SourceLocation Loc, StringRef Name,
+ MutableArrayRef<Expr *> Args) {
+ assert(Coroutine->CoroutinePromise && "no promise for coroutine");
----------------
EricWF wrote:
> ABataev wrote:
> > Why do you need `MutableArrayRef<Epr *>`, when `ArrayRef<Expr *>` is
> > enough? Also `buildMemberCall` must be changed
> `Sema::ActOnCallExpr` requires the `MutableArrayRef`, so I don't see how this
> can be changed.
Ok, then maybe it is better to use `MultiExprArg` rather than
`MutableArrayRef<Expr *>` which is looking a bit confusing
https://reviews.llvm.org/D26057
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
