faisalv accepted this revision.
faisalv added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
With the assert, I would feel comfortable committing the patch. It always
helps to get Richard's approval too - so feel free to ping him aggressively to
see if he's interested in stopping it from being committed.
Also, I spoke with Richard & Hubert briefly at the Standards meeting in Oulu
about dropping CXXThisTypeOverride - they're not sure whether we can entirely
drop it (because of noexcept operands and trailing return types) without some
other ugliness - but I'll try and investigate that at some point (unless
you're interested in looking into it).
Thanks again Erik!
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaExprCXX.cpp:971
@@ +970,3 @@
+ if (ThisTy.isNull() && isLambdaCallOperator(CurContext) &&
+ !ActiveTemplateInstantiations.empty()) {
+
----------------
I wouldn't mind an assertion here that 'DC' is a CXXRecordDecl if you think
this branch can only be triggered if that's the case. Like you, I can't
readily think of a case where getCurrentThisType would need to be called while
'transforming' or 'parsing' a lambda and getFunctionLevelDeclContext would not
return either a CXXMethorDecl or a CXXRecordDecl (assuming ThisTy is null).
http://reviews.llvm.org/D21145
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
