Anastasia marked an inline comment as done. Anastasia added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp:8175 DeclaratorChunk::FunctionTypeInfo &FTI = D.getFunctionTypeInfo(); - if (FTI.TypeQuals != 0) { - if (FTI.TypeQuals & Qualifiers::Const) - Diag(D.getIdentifierLoc(), diag::err_invalid_qualified_constructor) - << "const" << SourceRange(D.getIdentifierLoc()); - if (FTI.TypeQuals & Qualifiers::Volatile) - Diag(D.getIdentifierLoc(), diag::err_invalid_qualified_constructor) - << "volatile" << SourceRange(D.getIdentifierLoc()); - if (FTI.TypeQuals & Qualifiers::Restrict) - Diag(D.getIdentifierLoc(), diag::err_invalid_qualified_constructor) - << "restrict" << SourceRange(D.getIdentifierLoc()); + if (FTI.MethodQualifiers && FTI.MethodQualifiers->getTypeQualifiers() != 0) { + auto DiagQual = [&](DeclSpec::TQ TypeQual, StringRef QualName, ---------------- rjmccall wrote: > Anastasia wrote: > > rjmccall wrote: > > > I think you should add a `hasMethodQualifiers` method to FTI that does > > > this check. Note that it needs to check for attributes, too, and I think > > > you need to figure out some way to generalize `forEachCVRUQual` to cover > > > those. > > Are there any attributes I should handle currently? > > > > Also are you suggesting to add another `forEach...` method or extend > > existing? If the latter, I might not be able to use it in all places I use > > it now. > Adding another method might be easier. How many clients actually use the TQ? In **DeclSpec.cpp** I definitely need just TQ. I am not sure about **SemaType.cpp**. All other places (3x) I guess should be possible to generalize. Although I am not very clear if I should be checking all attr. It might be a bit exhaustive since the use cases are for the function? Perhaps, I could add an extra helper `forEachQualifier` that can call `forEachCVRUQual` and then I could add a FIXME to complete the rest. We can extend it as we discover what's missing. For example I will add address spaces there in my next patch. Would this make sense? As for `hasMethodQualifiers` just to be clear I would need to check for all qualifiers including reference qualifier, attributes, etc? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D55948/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D55948 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits