On Nov 17, 2008, at 3:12 PM, Sebastian Redl wrote:
> Chris Lattner wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 14, 2008, at 3:42 PM, Sebastian Redl wrote:
>>
>>> + case DeclSpec::SCS_mutable:
>>> + // mutable can only appear on non-static class members, so
>>> it's always
>>> + // an error here
>>> + Diag(D.getIdentifierLoc(), diag::err_mutable_nonmember);
>>> + InvalidDecl = true;
>>> + }
>>
>> Please use an explicit break here, even though it isn't strictly
>> needed.
> Of course. I'd never intentionally omit a break.
>>> + case DeclSpec::SCS_mutable:
>>> + if (isFunc) {
>>> + if (DS.getStorageClassSpecLoc().isValid())
>>> + Diag(DS.getStorageClassSpecLoc(),
>>> + diag::err_mutable_function);
>>> + else
>>> + Diag(DS.getThreadSpecLoc(),
>>> + diag::err_mutable_function);
>>> + D.getMutableDeclSpec().ClearStorageClassSpecs();
>>
>> How does this work for things like:
>>
>> mutable int Y(), X;
>> or:
>> mutable int &Y, X;
>>
>> I guess it isn't the end of the world :), but it seems that it
>> could cause spurious diagnostics in these cases by removing
>> mutability from X. Is it possible to recover by eliminating
>> mutable from just Y?
> Yes, but at some effort. We would have to set a flag here and pass
> it along to the function that actually creates the CXXFieldDecl
> (ActOnField), so that it can ignore the mutable storage class.
> ActOnField, however, is a method of Action, so we shouldn't just add
> a parameter to it that is an implementation detail of Sema. So we'd
> have to create a new function that has this parameter and make
> ActOnField a thin wrapper around it.
>
> I'll add a FIXME for now. I can do this I have some time with
> nothing better to do.
Ok, seems fine with me. Thanks Sebastian!
-Chris
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
