hubert.reinterpretcast added inline comments. ================ Comment at: include/clang/AST/Decl.h:1577 @@ -1576,2 +1576,3 @@ bool IsConstexpr : 1; + bool IsConcept : 1; ---------------- nwilson wrote: > faisalv wrote: > > My inclination would have been to add this bit to FunctionTemplateDecl, > > instead of to every FunctionDecl - since not every kind of FunctionDecl can > > be a concept ... My first instinct would have been to add an enum to > > TemplateKind, and then forward isConcept() to check if we are a template > > and if so, through it, if concept is specified? > > > > But I suppose that adds more complexity, and you trade space for speed - > > For my own edification, could I ask you or Richard to comment on the cons > > of that approach - and why the current approach is preferred? (i.e. > > simplicity over complexity or space over time etc.) > Sorry for the slow reply. Yeah, I thought it was a little more > straightforward having isConcept as a member function of FunctionDecl (and > the bit). It also seemed that we'd be okay in terms of size since 17 bits are > already being used here and adding one more wouldn't go over a byte boundary. > Maybe Richard has other thoughts though? I am not sure what the original justification was for IsTrivial to be a bit here instead of in CXXMethodDecl, but it seems that similar considerations apply.
================ Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:5909 @@ +5908,3 @@ + diag::err_concept_specified_specialization) + << (IsPartialSpecialization ? 2 : 1); + NewVD->setInvalidDecl(true); ---------------- Should we mention that the partial specialization case is pending additional wording (under Concepts TS Issue 15)? http://reviews.llvm.org/D13357 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
