On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Rafael Espindola <[email protected]> wrote: > Author: rafael > Date: Thu Mar 10 22:56:58 2011 > New Revision: 127460 > > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=127460&view=rev > Log: > Fix PR9453 by not trying to print a warning about ignored qualifiers > in conversion functions. > > Modified: > cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp > cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/return.cpp > > Modified: cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp > URL: > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp?rev=127460&r1=127459&r2=127460&view=diff > ============================================================================== > --- cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp (original) > +++ cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp Thu Mar 10 22:56:58 2011 > @@ -1757,6 +1757,7 @@ > // cv-qualifiers on return types are pointless except when the type is a > // class type in C++. > if (isa<PointerType>(T) && T.getLocalCVRQualifiers() && > + (D.getName().getKind() != UnqualifiedId::IK_ConversionFunctionId) > && > (!getLangOptions().CPlusPlus || !T->isDependentType())) { > assert(chunkIndex + 1 < e && "No DeclaratorChunk for the return > type?"); > DeclaratorChunk ReturnTypeChunk = D.getTypeObject(chunkIndex + 1); > > Modified: cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/return.cpp > URL: > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/return.cpp?rev=127460&r1=127459&r2=127460&view=diff > ============================================================================== > --- cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/return.cpp (original) > +++ cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/return.cpp Thu Mar 10 22:56:58 2011 > @@ -49,3 +49,7 @@ > const PCHAR GetName() { return 0; } // expected-warning{{'const' type > qualifier on return type has no effect}} > }; > } > + > +class foo { > + operator int * const (); > +};
Is there some reason we don't want to warn here? Or is this just a quick hack for 2.9? -Eli _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
