rsmith added a comment.
Looks reasonable to me. I expect you'll find more places that need to learn how
to handle dependent types in C, but this looks like a solid start.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/Expr.cpp:3757-3758
case NPC_ValueDependentIsNull:
- if (isTypeDependent() || getType()->isIntegralType(Ctx))
+ if ((!containsErrors() && isTypeDependent()) ||
+ getType()->isIntegralType(Ctx))
return NPCK_ZeroExpression;
----------------
This change appears to be redundant: we handled all `containsErrors()` cases
before the `switch`.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaCast.cpp:2693
+ (DestType->isDependentType() || SrcExpr.get()->isTypeDependent() ||
+ SrcExpr.get()->isValueDependent())) {
+ assert((DestType->containsErrors() || SrcExpr.get()->containsErrors() ||
----------------
Do we care about value-dependence here? Very little of C cast semantics depends
on the evaluated value of the expression -- I think this only matters for null
pointer constants. If we care about the value-dependent cast to pointer case,
maybe we should special-case that?
(It looks like the special-case handling for OpenCL event_t will also need a
value-dependence check.)
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp:14245-14247
+ExprResult Sema::CreateDependentBinOp(SourceLocation OpLoc,
+ BinaryOperatorKind Opc, Expr *LHS,
+ Expr *RHS) {
----------------
This function seems dangerous: in C++, we need to perform unqualified lookups
from the template definition context when creating a dependent binary operator,
and it's only correct to use this if such lookup found nothing.
Perhaps you could add something to the name of the function to indicate that it
should only be used when there are no unqualified lookup results?
================
Comment at: clang/test/Sema/error-dependence.c:10
+
+ // verify disgnostic "called object type '<dependent type>' is not a function
+ // or function pointer" is not emitted.
----------------
================
Comment at: clang/test/Sema/typo-correction.c:17
int foobar; // expected-note {{'foobar' declared here}}
-a = goobar ?: 4; // expected-warning {{type specifier missing, defaults to
'int'}} \
+new_a = goobar ?: 4; // expected-warning {{type specifier missing, defaults
to 'int'}} \
// expected-error {{use of undeclared identifier 'goobar';
did you mean 'foobar'?}} \
----------------
I assume we're getting a redefinition error for `a` now. If so, can you test
that uses of `a` after line 13 don't produce errors?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D85025/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D85025
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
