aprantl marked an inline comment as done.
aprantl added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenModule.cpp:5063
const_cast<ObjCImplementationDecl *>(D), PID);
}
}
----------------
rjmccall wrote:
> aprantl wrote:
> > rjmccall wrote:
> > > Is this special treatment still necessary? Won't we encounter the getter
> > > and setter on the normal pass over the method definitions in the
> > > `@implementation`?
> > We don't know which ObjMethodDecls without bodies are property accessor
> > implementations since there is no pointer from the ObjCMethodDecl back to
> > the ObjCPropertyImplDecl.
> I mean, this doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing to be able to discover
> given just an `ObjCMethodDecl`. We can certainly set something on the
> declaration that says that it represents a synthesized method definition (and
> is therefore a definition for the purposes of `isDefined` or anything
> similar).
If we were to move this into the loop / function that emits each method decl,
we would still somehow need to get back to the `ObjCPropertyImplDecl `. There
is no pointer in that direction, so we'd have to loop over all property impls
until we find it. This here is going to be faster. Storing a pointer to a
possible `ObjCPropertyImplDecl` in `ObjCMethodDecl` seems wasteful. Let me know
if I misunderstood what you were suggesting.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D68108/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D68108
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
