EricWF added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaCoroutine.cpp:1285 + // We needed to check it, but we don't need to generate code for it. + if (!paramDecl->getIdentifier()) + continue; ---------------- rsmith wrote: > EricWF wrote: > > @rsmith Is there a better way to check if the move would be valid for > > unnamed parameters without building up these expressions? > We could wire through a flag to tell `AddInitializerToDecl` to build the > `InitializationSequence` but not `Perform` it, but I don't think it's worth > the effort. In fact, I'd prefer that we store the copy statement in the AST > regardless, and make the choice to elide the copy from within `CodeGen`. > (Sema shouldn't be dropping parts of the AST just because CodeGen doesn't > need them; for example, a tool that wants to identify all potential callers > of the move constructor should be able to find this call.) > > I think we should also disable elision of parameter copies under > `-fno-elide-constructors`. Makes sense that we shouldn't drop this from the AST. I'll fix that. https://reviews.llvm.org/D33797 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
