I finished integrating your LambdaScopeInfo changes with my work since my last patch submission. Divergent branches aren't fun. :/
I saw you switched from using CheckFieldDecl to directly using FieldDecl::Create. Was that intentional? I had the impression that the extra semantic checking was preferred. Same question about switching from ActOnIdExpression to directly using name lookup. A few problems concerning the CXXMethodDecl (henceforth called Method): A. I was trying to use ActOnStartOfFunctionDef to enter the DeclContext owned by Method. You had used PushDeclContext directly. I believe that will be necessary to avoid creating an extraneous FunctionScopeInfo, but do we want any of the extra checking in ActOnStartOfFunctionDef? B. A conundrum: - PushDeclContext requires that the lexical DeclContext for Method be CurContext. - CXXRecordDecl::addDecl requires that the lexical DeclContext for Method be the CXXRecordDecl (henceforth called Class). How about this solution? : 1. Method.setLexicalDeclContext(CurContext). 2. PushDeclContext. 3. Add Method to the LambdaScopeInfo so that it can be retrieved later (we can't look it up in Class because we haven't called addDecl yet). 4. Parse body. 5. Retrieve Method from the LambdaScopeInfo. 6. ActOnFinishFunctionBody (calls PopDeclContext). 7. Method.setLexicalDeclContext(Class). 8. Class.addDecl(Method). C. In a similar question to part A on ActOnStartOfFunctionDef vs PushDeclContext, concerning step 6 above, do we want to use PopDeclContext directly instead of ActOnFinishFunctionBody, or do we want the extra semantic checks? - John _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
