================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:2363
@@ -2382,11 +2362,3 @@
- } else if (!Context.isSameCallConv(OldTypeInfo.getCC(),
- NewTypeInfo.getCC())) {
- // Calling conventions really aren't compatible, so complain.
- Diag(New->getLocation(), diag::err_cconv_change)
- << FunctionType::getNameForCallConv(NewTypeInfo.getCC())
- << (OldTypeInfo.getCC() == CC_Default)
- << (OldTypeInfo.getCC() == CC_Default ? "" :
- FunctionType::getNameForCallConv(OldTypeInfo.getCC()));
- Diag(Old->getLocation(), diag::note_previous_declaration);
- return true;
+ if (FirstTypeInfo.getCC() != NewTypeInfo.getCC()) {
+ bool NewCCExplicit = getCCTypeAttr(New->getType());
----------------
Please compare against `OldTypeInfo` for consistency with the rest of this
function, and sink `First` into the `else` below. This makes no difference,
because if we don't succeed in unifying the calling conventions, we return
`false`, which marks the declaration invalid.
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:2373-2376
@@ +2372,6 @@
+ bool FirstCCExplicit = getCCTypeAttr(First->getType());
+ assert((FirstCCExplicit || NewCCExplicit ||
+ !(isa<CXXMethodDecl>(Old) &&
+ cast<CXXMethodDecl>(Old)->isStatic())) &&
+ "clang inferred mismatched implicit CCs");
+ Diag(New->getLocation(), diag::err_cconv_change)
----------------
This `assert` trivially holds: `NewCCExplicit` is `true` here. Also, drop the
"clang" in the assert text.
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp:4474-4475
@@ +4473,4 @@
+ const AttributedType *AT = type->getAs<AttributedType>();
+ while (AT && (!AT->isCallingConv() || AT->getAttrKind() == CCAttrKind))
+ AT = AT->getModifiedType()->getAs<AttributedType>();
+
----------------
Can you stop if you hit an attribute where `AT->getAttrKind() == CCAttrKind`?
If there's a problem within that, we should have diagnosed it when building
that type.
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp:4475
@@ +4474,3 @@
+ while (AT && (!AT->isCallingConv() || AT->getAttrKind() == CCAttrKind))
+ AT = AT->getModifiedType()->getAs<AttributedType>();
+
----------------
Should we walk through `typedef`s here? I seem to recall we determined that
we're only supposed to check this against other attributes on the current
declarator.
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp:4548
@@ +4547,3 @@
+ FunctionTypeUnwrapper Unwrapped(*this, T);
+ T = Unwrapped.wrap(*this, FT);
+}
----------------
I think we lose source information here if a member function is declared
through a `typedef`, and the member and non-member calling conventions differ.
Please add a FIXME for this (we should probably produce a type sugar node to
track the pre-adjustment type).
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1231
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
