On Nov 10, 2008, at 5:38 AM, Douglas Gregor wrote:
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=58986&view=rev
> Log:
> Some cleanups to the declaration/checking of overloaded operators in
> C++. Thanks to Sebastian for the review
I'm going to follow up to cfe-dev about some brain ramblings, but:
> @@ -1945,11 +1885,19 @@
> ParamIsInt = BT->getKind() == BuiltinType::Int;
>
> if (!ParamIsInt) {
> + diag::kind DK;
> + if (Op == OO_PlusPlus) {
> + if (MethodDecl)
> + DK =
> diag::err_operator_overload_post_inc_must_be_int_member;
> + else
> + DK = diag::err_operator_overload_post_inc_must_be_int;
If you can provide good location info (i.e. point to the parameter in
question), you don't need the "second parameter" vs "parameter"
distinction. Just calling it the 'parameter' should be sufficient.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
