================
@@ -3499,15 +3506,35 @@ bool FunctionDecl::isDestroyingOperatorDelete() const {
// Within a class C, a single object deallocation function with signature
// (T, std::destroying_delete_t, <more params>)
// is a destroying operator delete.
- if (!isa<CXXMethodDecl>(this) || getOverloadedOperator() != OO_Delete ||
- getNumParams() < 2)
+ if (!isa<CXXMethodDecl>(this) || getOverloadedOperator() != OO_Delete)
+ return false;
+
+ unsigned DestroyingDeleteTagParam = 1;
+ if (isTypeAwareOperatorNewOrDelete())
+ ++DestroyingDeleteTagParam;
+
+ if (getNumParams() <= DestroyingDeleteTagParam)
return false;
- auto *RD = getParamDecl(1)->getType()->getAsCXXRecordDecl();
+ auto *RD =
+ getParamDecl(DestroyingDeleteTagParam)->getType()->getAsCXXRecordDecl();
return RD && RD->isInStdNamespace() && RD->getIdentifier() &&
RD->getIdentifier()->isStr("destroying_delete_t");
}
+bool FunctionDecl::isTypeAwareOperatorNewOrDelete() const {
+ if (getDeclName().getNameKind() != DeclarationName::CXXOperatorName)
+ return false;
+ if (getDeclName().getCXXOverloadedOperator() != OO_New &&
+ getDeclName().getCXXOverloadedOperator() != OO_Delete &&
+ getDeclName().getCXXOverloadedOperator() != OO_Array_New &&
+ getDeclName().getCXXOverloadedOperator() != OO_Array_Delete)
+ return false;
----------------
cor3ntin wrote:
Maybe we should introduce
```
DeclarationName::isOperatorNew
DeclarationName::isOperatorDelete
DeclarationName::isOperatorNewOrDelete
```
to clean that up
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/113510
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
