rjmccall accepted this revision. rjmccall added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thanks! This looks ready; thank you for your patience in working this out. ================ Comment at: include/clang/AST/Type.h:1108 + PCK_ARCStrong, // objc strong pointer. + PCK_Struct // non-trivial C struct. + }; ---------------- ahatanak wrote: > rjmccall wrote: > > These should all be /// documentation comments, and they mostly shouldn't > > talk about fields since this is a query on QualType, not FieldDecl. I > > would suggest something like: > > > > for Trivial - The type does not fall into any of the following categories. > > Note that this case is zero-valued so that values of this enum can be used > > as a boolean condition for non-triviality. > > > > for VolatileTrivial - The type would be trivial except that it is > > volatile-qualified. Types that fall into one of the other non-trivial > > cases may additionally be volatile-qualified. > > > > for ARCStrong - The type is an Objective-C retainable pointer type that is > > qualified with the ARC __strong qualifier. > > > > for Struct - The type is a struct containing a field whose type is not > > PCK_Trivial. Note that a C++ struct type does not necessarily match this; > > C++ copying semantics are too complex to express here, in part because they > > depend on the exact constructor or assignment operator that is chosen by > > overload resolution to do the copy. > Thanks, I copied your comments verbatim except the comment on PCK_Struct: > types that are PCK_Struct have a field that is neither PCK_Trivial nor > PCK_VolatileTrivial. We can use the original comment once we start > distinguishing PCK_Trivial structs that have volatile fields from those that > don't. Yes, of course, that makes sense. https://reviews.llvm.org/D41228 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits