Tyker marked 2 inline comments as done.
Tyker added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/AST/DeclCXX.h:2033
+
+ void setExplicitSpecifier(ExplicitSpecInfo ESI);
+
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> Generally we don't want to have setters in the AST; the AST is intended to be
> immutable after creation. Is this necessary?
this is used in 2 cases:
- for deserialization.
- for in `Sema::ActOnFunctionDeclarator` to make every declaration of the same
function have the same explicit specifier as the canonical one. there is
probably a better way to do this but i didn't find how.
the second use case will need to be changed because the constructor's explicit
specifier will be tail-allocated so the explicit specifier from the canonical
declaration will need to be recovered before construction to allocate storage.
how can we find the canonical declaration of a function before it is
constructed ?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaInit.cpp:3819
+ AllowExplicit = AllowExplicit && !CopyInitializing;
+ if (AllowExplicit || Conv->isMaybeNotExplicit()) {
if (ConvTemplate)
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> Consider just removing this `if`. It's not clear that it carries its weight.
this if prevent conversion that are already known not to be valid from being
added to the overload set. removing it is still correct because it will be
removed later. but we would be doing "useless" work because we are adding the
to the overload set knowing they will be removed.
the only benefit i see of removing this if is to make all explicit conversion
appear in overload resolution failure messages. is it the intent ?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D60934/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D60934
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
