dberris added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D34052#778670, @dblaikie wrote:
> I take it there's already handling for these attributes on non-member > functions? Yes, we're just extending it to also apply to the case where it doesn't support this one case where we actually do need the implicit this argument > There's probably a reason this code can't be wherever that code is & subtract > one from the index? (reducing code duplication by having all the error > handling, etc, in one place/once) I tried doing it for the `checkFunctionOrMethodNumParams` function, but it ended up being much more complicated. :( The choice is between adding a bool argument (e.g. AllowImplicitThis) in `checkFunctionOrMethodParameterIndex(...)` that's default to always true (to preserve existing behaviour) but the checks and implementation of that template has a number of assumptions as to whether the index is valid for member functions. I can change this so that the logic is contained in `checkFunctionOrMethodParameterIndex(...)` if that's more readable? https://reviews.llvm.org/D34052 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
