rsmith added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Parse/ParseDeclCXX.cpp:3547
NoexceptRange = SourceRange(KeywordLoc, T.getCloseLocation());
- } else {
- NoexceptType = EST_None;
}
} else {
----------------
Should `NoexceptRange` be set in the `else` case too, now that we're claiming
that the type is `EST_ComputedNoexcept`?
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/TreeTransform.h:5044-5057
+ if (!NoexceptExpr.isUsable())
return true;
// FIXME: This is bogus, a noexcept expression is not a condition.
NoexceptExpr = getSema().CheckBooleanCondition(Loc, NoexceptExpr.get());
- if (NoexceptExpr.isInvalid())
+ if (!NoexceptExpr.isUsable())
return true;
----------------
These changes don't make sense to me: if we get a valid-but-null `ExprResult`
from any of the above, there is no guarantee a diagnostic has been produced, so
it is not correct to return `true`.
Which call is producing the valid-but-null `ExprResult`?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D28258
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
